
:t>:;.i^J^-i''e;V;K:fy-;%, 



^' 'M 



:^ U^g5'^ ^g C". 



I LIBRARY OF CONGRESS/I 

Chap. )ifk %-^ 21 



Sheu 



'Ma^- 



UNITED STATES OF AIV3ERBCA. 






Pv 



'"V 



\K.r 



NEW BOOKS FOR FARJMERS, 



ANNOUNCEMENT OF 

THE FARMERS' PUBLISHING C0MPA1T7. 



In order to meet a want long felt by practical men in hus- 
bandry, this company will shortly issue a series of small, inexpen- 
sive volumes on leading and important agricultural topics, in- 
cluding Cereal Crops,. Food Staples, Farming Experiments, 
Barnyard Manure, Chemical Farming, and other questions of 
general interest, as more particularly designated in the list 
below. 

Each number of this series is a separate treatise in which the 
main points are condensed within a small compass, and clearly 
discussed. 

These essays and discussions are prepared expressly for this 
Company, by the well-known writer, Mr. Conrad Wilson, and 
comprise, in an abridged form, mostof the results of his numer- 
ous investigations during the last fifteen years. 

Having been formerly a practical farmer, and most of his life 
a close observer, he is well qualified to discuss the problems of 
husbandry, not only in the light of theory, but as practical ques- 
tions to be solved in the interest of working farmers, and in 
accordance with sound common sense. 



The following are some of the subjects included in this 
.series: • 

1. Chemical Farming; Its possibilities, and its mistakes; 
Illustrating the necessity and value of chemical elements, when 
;the conditions are right, and the danger of them when the con- 
ditions are wrong, and including also an examination of the 
Stockbridge formulas. 

2. Barn-yard Manure; What it is, and what it might be; 
how to increase its value and amount. Its best results obtain- 
<ed when blended with fertilizers. 

3. Chemical Farming in Europe; As developed in the 
-system of Prof. Ville,- and the experiments of Mr. Lawes. 

4. Experiments in Farming; Their uncertainty examined, 
and a remedy suggested ; including a series of CHARTS to 
:guide the farmer in testing the soil, and also blank forms to 
simpiity the operation. 

5. The Potato Crop, and its development under experi- 
>anental treatment, with guiding charts, and blank forms for 
fxractical use. 

.6- The Wheat Crop, and its possibilities, including charts, 
and Mank foims. 

7. Indian Corn, and its future, with charts and forms for 
experiments. 

8. An Ideal Experiment .Station ; with suggestions for 
solving unsettled questions. 

9. A Secretary of Agriculture, the great need of the 
country. 

i.Q, Agricultural Fairs; Needed reforms, and how to 
.secure them. 



Those who have seen the occasional articles of this writer in 
the leading agricultural journals will agree with our estimate of 
his fitness for the work here undertaken. If further evidence 
is needed, the following opinions, cited from a few well known 
authorities, will sufficiently indicate the capacity of the author, 
and the practical value of his investigations. 

Mr. A. W. Cheever, editor of the New England Farmer ^ in 
a letter to Mr. Wilson, over a year ago, closed with the follow- 
ing tribute. 

"As an editor desiring to make a useful paper, I feel honored 
by your proposition to write a series of articles for the Farmer 
and knowing that you have a heart in your work, I beg leave to 
thank you as well as I can. " 

Mr. E. S. Carman, editor of the Rural New Yorker^ recently 
wrote to our author, (alter quoting one of his papers in the 
Rural, ) 

'' I have just read your address at the American Institute, 
*How Agricultural Journals Benefit the Farmer.' It is so 
thoughtful, so benevolent, that I felt constrained to thank you 
for it, and I am sure many others interested in agriculture must 
share the same feeling." 

The Elmira Husbandman, in citing from another journal an 
article by Mr. Wilson, on ''Farmers Clubs," added the follow- 
ing spontaneous tribute : 

'' Mr. Wilson is a vigorous writer, and sets forth his ideas in 
such pleasant ways that readers are attracted. His articles are 
very widely copied in the agricultural press." 



Dr. E. L. Sturtevant, in the Scie?itific Farmer of this montby 
records the following opinion : 

''Our friend, Conrad Wilson, has done more to elucidate 
the truth, and bring out the real facts of the fertilizer question 
than any of his conlempoi-aries. He has done this by the 
evident fairness of his mind, as he seems always ready to be 
convinced of an erroneous opinion, although very tenacious in 
his views." 

Mr. Geo. B. James, editor of the American Cultivator, in a 
letter of last August says : 

"I have been much interested in your discussions. Such 
vigorous treatment is certain to provoke thought and investiga- 
tion. You are doing good work and I am glad to see another 
independent thinker added to the list of agricultural writers," 

It is intended to publish the above series monthly, beginning 
with the discussion of Chemical Fanning which will be issued 
during the present month. 

PRICES: 

The price of the separate bound volumes, in cloth, stamped 
and gilt, will range from 50 to 75 cents. 

The price in paper covers, from 20 to 30^cents. 

DISCOUNT. 

As most of the agricultural journals are accustomed to supply 
reading matter in various forms to farmers and rural circles, 
and as there are obvious reasons in favor of this practice, we pro- 



pose to make a special discount in faror of such journals, and 
in favor of large orders. 

Terms made known on application. Address 
FABMBRS' PUBLISHING CO.^ 

POST OFFICE BOX No. 2695. 

Or, 104Duane Street, N. Y. 

Tlie address of CONRAD WILSOU is also P. 0, Box 2695* 
ABEAM EEsQXU-, Pkesipesjt. 



CHEMICAL FARMING; 



rrS POSSIBILITIES, AND ITS MISTAKES. 



HiLUSTRATING THE NECESSITY AND VAT-iUE OF CHEMICAL ELEMENTS, 

WHEN SIGHTLY USED, AND] THE DANGER OF THEM 

WHEN THE CONDITIONS ARE WRONG ; 

INCLUDING ALSO AN EXAMINATION OF 

THE STOCKBUIDGB FORMULAS. 

BY 




CONRAD WILSON. 
'I 



PUBLISHED BY 

THE FARMERS' PUBLISHINa COMPANY;" 

P. 0. Box 2695 ; or, 204 DUANE STREET^ 
NEW YORK. 






li 




1878. 



Entered according to act of Congress, A. D. 1878, by 

THB FAKMERS' PUBLISHING CO., 

In the Office of the Librarian of Congress fit Washington. 



cj^ 



4 



CHEMICAL FARMING. 



INTRODUCTION. 

In inviting the attention of American farmers to a subject so 
nearly related to their business as fertilizers and ma.nures, it 
is safe to assume that no apology is needed. On practical ques- 
tions where all are concerned and great interests are at stake, the 
arena of discussion is open to all, and the humblest investigator 
may contribute something to the final result. If his own sugges- 
tions have but little intrinsic merit, they may still draw out valu- 
able ideas from other sources, and thus the effort made is not in 
vain. 

Plant food in agriculture is a theme so fruitful, and of such 
endless interest, that it can hardly be too much examined. A 
single mistake in the use of it, if committed by one man and 
carelessly copied by another is liable to be still further repeated 
and multiplied, until it is launched on a wide career of mischief 
leaving its trail through a whole community. But if a mere 
casual mistake is capable of such results, how much more serious 
is the consequence when error is deliberately (though uncon- 
ciously) engrafted upon a system, and thus made perpetual. 

In this view therefore it may be confidently assumed that 
great practical questions should be closely investigated. Agita - 
tion in such cases is always profitable, and often the source of 
ultimate truth. 

To supply the soil with plant food of the right kind, in the 
true proportion, and in the best condition for immediate effect, 



is to-day the great problem of our husbandry. Earnest farmers 
are everywhere discussing the question, and earnest thinkers in 
both hemispheres are endeavoring to solve it. Nor is it at all 
surprising that a general interest is felt on a subject so important. 
For the man who liberally feeds his growing crops is, at the same 
time, feeding his own household, and helping to feed the human 
race. 

This broad subject, along with other farming topics of similar 
interest, I have occasionally discussed in some of the leading 
agricultural journals ; and the more I have looked into these pro- 
blems the more I am impressed with their magnitude and their 
difficulty, and the more I am convinced that they require much 
careful thought and a spirit of patience that can 
" Leara to labor and to wait'' 



PROMINENT INVESTIGATORS. 

Among those who have recently attracted attention to this 
Lubject, and have thus rendered important service to husbandry 
are Prof. Ville, Mr. Lawes and Prof. Stockbridge. Each of these 
eminent men has devoted much thought and study, as well as- 
practical effort to demonstrate the value of chemical fertilizers,. 
and though their views differ somewhat, as well as their practice, 
the general result is that plant-food has been lately more widely 
examined than ever before, and the necessity of using it, under 
right conditians, is beginning to be better understood. 

Yet it will be found on examination that these earnest investi- 
gators have each made some mistakes which, though too import- 
ant to be ignored, or tacitly accepted, do not necessarily affect 
the separate and independent value of their other sound conclu_ 
sions. Por the solid and lasting results they have achieved their 
fame is already secured. But while admitting their great ability^ 
and scientific attainments, and conceding the full measure of their 
well earned renown, it would be neither wise nor just to overlook 
their mistakes, or to tolerate errors that are clearly damaging to 
the farming interest. 

On the theory of Prof. Stockbridge, I have already briefly com- 
mented through the press, and I propose in these pages to exam- 
ine it still further, in reference to some ess<;ntial points not yet 
discussed. Whatever may be the faults of this system, it certain- 
ly has one aspect that deserves applause, and creates a presump- 
tion in its favor. It is sharply outlined, and so clearly stated 
that it cannot be mistaken. It claims much, but the claim is 
bravely made. Liberal promises, when accurately stated, are 
always attractive. For this reason the theory, if sound, is so 
much the more valuable ; but if unsound, so much the more 
dangerous. 

It is not to be denied that in the system of Prof. Stockbridge 
the fundamental principle is sound, and that some of the con- 
clusions are true and important. It is therefore unpleasant tQ 



12 

discover and still more so to criticise, even palpable errors, when 
engrafted on truths that are undoubted and eternal. Yet the 
world recognizes no test of merit but practical results. By this 
test every system must stand or fall. In questions of universal 
interest personal considerations disappear. 

If chemical elements have been found more successful by 
other processes than by these formulas, and this fact can be 
clearly established, if the theory now on trial ean itself be 
materially modified so as greatly to enhance its certainty and its 
profit, and if it can be further sliown that the total difference at 
stake on this question is equivalent every year to millions of dol- 
lars, then why should criticism be silent ; or why should inves- 
tigation, when it has reached this conclusion, stop short, from 
mere lack of courage to utter the truth ? 

In the investigation of this subject one distinction is very essen- 
tial. While I fully admit the great value of chemical elements 
to the farmer, it does not follow that chemical formulas are either 
valuable or safe. The elements of plant-food, as revealed in 
chemistry, are the creation of Infinite wisdom, and their efficiency 
is determined by natural laws. Formulas are the product of a 
finite mind, and may be valuable, or otherwise. That they are in 
certain cases well adapted and successful, and occasionally give 
striking results is not denied. But the net result of yield, cost 
and final profit that is claimed for them, on a general average, 
can only be safely accepted when definitely proved. 

But if it shall be clearly shown that the system is not in harmony 
with natural laws, that the testimony of experience is thus far 
against it, and that the tendency of the formulas is to reduce the 
profit of crops, and ultimately to diminish the use of fertilizers, and 
the business of dealers, then every man who tills the soil, and 
every dealer in chemical elements will be able to judge where 
his true interest lies. 

METHOD IN FERTILIZING. 

In farming, as in every thing else, method implies thought, 
aad is, therefore, one of the largest factors in successful results. 



It deals with the facts of- experience, and by arranging them in 
harmonious relations brings order out of confusion, and convert;:? 
darkness into light. This truth holds good in every branch of 
agriculture, and is no less important in fertilizing the soil than 
in harvesting the crop. In all cases those who are guided by a 
plan are most successful, and the farmer who works by method 
gets larger results, and with more certainty than one who works 
at random. 

Is it not then clearly expedient for farmers to examine the 
methods and systems in agriculture as the surest way to under- 
stand the subjects to which they relate; and will not those who 
are seeking further light in regard to fertilizers find it their in- 
terest to carefully investigate prevailing theories ? 

The present drift and tendency of husbandry are evidently in 
the direction ot chemical farming, and no man can fail to get 
light on that question, as well as on the whole subject of plant 
food, who thoroughly examines the Stockbridge theory. The 
more we discuss the merits of nitrogen, potash and phosphoric 
acid, the sooner we shall reach the ultimate truth in regard to the 
other chemical elements, also as well as for barnyard manure. Al- 
ready the debate on this question has drawn out from Professor 
Stockbridge a fuller statement of his views, (as will shortly ap- 
pear,) and the time is probably not distant when every form of 
plant-food will find its appropriate place in the economy of the 
farm. 

A BRIEF REVIEW OF FOTtMER COMMENTS. 

Having formerly discussed some parts of this system in various 
journals, I will here briefly condense the points already made in 
the argument which will simplify the discussion, and make shorter 
work afterward in dealing with the main questions on which the 
theory chiefly rests, and which have not yet been examined. 

Among the numerous trials that have been made with a view 
of testing this theory, probably the most important and conclu- 
sive are those conducted by the Professor himself, and by Sturte- 
vnnt Brothers, at Waushakum Farm. Certainly no man can be 



presumed more competent to test these formulas than the eminent 
scientist and practical farmer whose genius created them ; while 
it is equally certain, as far as relates to Dr. Sturtevant, that very 
few men, in this country or any other, are better qualified than 
he to make thorough and successful experiments in farming, 
ft is therefore cilear that no examples could be cited that would 
be more likely to illuminate this question than the trials made 
^y these eminent men. 

On the first, and most noted experiment of Sturtevant Brothers, 
J. made some comments at the time in the Country Gentleman 
and afterwards more at length in the Practical Farmer. It is 
not now necessary, for the purpose here in view, to present the 
analysis then made of this elaborate and comprehensive per- 
formance. That the trial, though conducted on an extended 
«cale, and with an evident purpose to make it thorough and com- 
plete, did not confirm in any particular the soundness of the 
theory, was demonstrated clearly and beyond any question. This 
'experiment was, of course, only a single fact and though bearing 
on a grave prolDlem, no more weight is claimed for it, as an argu- 
ment, than it fairly deserves. 

But as an experiment it was every way suggestive, and fruitful 
of results ; and though^ it did not yield precisely the fruit that 
was expected, it clearly demonstrated a number of possibilities 
that deserve attention. Though it did not in any way indicate 
the soundness of the Amherst formulas, nor show that three 
elements of plant food are all the farmer needs to supply for a 
maximum yied of corn, it stands on record to prove the possibili- 
ty of growing corn in New England with barnyard manure, at the 
rate of one hundred bushels per acre, and at a cost of less than 
thirty cents a bushel. 

Yet this fact, important as it is, does not measure the full value 
of the experiment. Even in its mistakes this trial is radiant with 
instruction. It shows that in the experiments of a man of genius 
the very failings may sometimes be converted into success by dis- 
covering in them unsuspected results of great value. 



15 
But without dwelling longer on this head, let me here refer to 

AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION, 

in regard to cost of production which this theory leaves out of 
view. 

This point is made clear in the following i)assage from a paper 
of mine, read at the American Institute Farmers' Club, and subse- 
quently reproduced in various journals: 

" The mere question of increased yield from fertilizers, which Prof. 
Stockbridge seems to consider the essential thing, is not so regarded by 
practical farmers. It is, doubtless, important, but by no means con- 
clusive. To add fifty bushels to a given yield may be profitable or not, 
according to its cost. But the real question is, how does the extra pro- 
duct affect the cost per bushel for the whole crop? 

"The true way to test the value of the theory is to add the extra yield 
produced by fertilizers to the normal yield, (or yield without manure,) 
and then calculate the cost per bushel for the total crop. If then we 
assume the average yield of corn, without manure, for New England, at 
twenty-five bushels per acre, there still remains the charge for plant 
food drawn from the soil by the normal crop, to be added to the cost of 
the fertihzers applied. 

" Now if we take the cost of plant food, includitig both these factors, 
and add the other expenses according to the figures of Dr. Sturtevant in 
his " Chemical Corn-grmobig" it will be found that the best result that 
can fairly be claimed for the system, on a general average, would bring 
the yield and cost for corn to seventy-five bushels per acre, at over sixty 
cents per bushel. " 

And even this result is only possible, by taking for granted, 1st. 
That the average yield without manure is not less than twenty- 
five bushels per acre; and, 2d. That the corn formula costing 
$25 will give an increase of fifty bushels, both of which are very 
uncertain, and the latter extremely improbable. 

Thus, in the best view of the case, the cost of corn by this 
method would be sixty cents per bushel, and very often more. 
But the Doctor has already given us, with barnyard manure, one 
hundred bushels per acre at twenty-nine cents per bushel, and 
other brilliant farmers, in other localities, have often given a still 
larger yield, and still lower cost. 



i6 
EXPERIMENT OF PROF. STOCKBRIDOE. 

In ^the following passage from a former paper in the Nev) 
England Farmei^, I have examined an important experi- 
ment of the Professor which had previously been submitted by 
him as a trial crop and was regarded as a confirmation of his 
theory. It will be seen by the figures, given below, that the 
result is very far from encouraging. The passage cited goes on 
to say: 

' ' Experience has taught that both these sources of plant food, (ferti- 
lizers and manures) are of priceless value to the farmer, and that nothing 
is g=iined by either in attempting to make one of them independent of 
the other. 

" But leaving this point for future consideration, my present purpose is 
to show that the experiment of Prof. Stockbridge, as cited by himself, 
in which he applied the material for fifty bushels of corn and obtained 
ninety-four bushels, does not by any means support the conclusion so 
strongly stated, ' that this method of feeding plants is the cheapest of 
all methods of producing them ; the cheapest in the world ; cheaper 
than barnyard manure ; cheaper than anything known.' Let it be un- 
derstood that I am not here denying the validity of this claim. It may 
be well founded, or it may not. That will appear hereafter. 1 simply 
remark that the experiment cited does "not prove the point claimed. 

" Let us glance at some of the facts and figures. The Professor esti- 
mates the value of his crop ab $102.52, including the stover. The plant 
food applied for fifty bushels is charged at forty-one cents per bushel, 
making $20.50. He then adds, ' I got ninty-four bushels of corn for 
$20.50, and I have got $82.02 on my crop to pay for my labor, mytaxesr 
and my interest.' Now, if we assume the cost of these items to beat 
the same rate as reported by Dr. Sturtevant in his experiment of last 
year, then the account of the Professor's crop will stand as follows: 

Seed ana labor, including harvesting and husking $30 62 

Fertilizers for fifty bushels - 20 50 

Plant food for forty- four bushels, to be charged as exhaustion of soil 18 04 

Interest and taxes, as formerly estimated by Dr. S 10 00 

$79 16 

Deducting this cost from the value of the crop, as given by the Pro- 
fessor ($102.52,) we have $23.36 as a profit on one acre of ninety-four 
bushels." 



17 

But here it is necessary t9 make an important correction. The 
cost of chemical elements for corn, by this theory, (as I have 
elsewhere shown,) is over fifty cents per bushel, and the dealers 
price list makes it fifty cents. Consequently the charge for 
fertilizers above should be, 

For fifty bushels $25 00 

For lorty-four bushels 22 00 

$47 00 

This makes a difference of about $9.00 per acre in the cost of 
production; which brings the profit per acre to less than !$15.00. 

This falls far below the results obtained by Dr. Sturtevant in 
his experiment of two years ago, as will be seen by comparing it 
with his very elaborate and carefully considered paper on " Chemi- 
cal Corn Growing, ' ' a copy of which I have had the pleasure of 
receiving from him. 

But there is another defect in this experiment which, though 
not alluded to in my former examination of it, is too important 
to be overlooked. The Professor has reported forty-four bushels 
per acre as the normal yield of his land, though the experiment 
does not embrace any provision for testing this point. As no 
facts are given to show what the normal yield really was, how are 
we to know that this is correct ? The mere fact that fertilizers 
were applied for fifty bushels does not at all prove that the increase 
actually was fifty bushels, or that the normal yield was just forty- 
four bushels. To assume this would, of course, be very conven- 
ient, but it is simply taking for granted the point to be proved, and 
is hardly the kind of reasoning that plain farmers have a right to 
expect from scientific men. It is entirely possible that either the 
natural capacity of the soil, or the fertility inherited from previ- 
ous manuring, or both of these causes combined may have been 
sufficient for a yield of even sixty-four bushels per acre. In that 
case the increase from chemicals would be but thirty bushels. 
But if, when chemical elements are applied according to the 
formula for a given amount, this is alone sufficient to prove Ihat 
they produce that amount, then there is clearly no need of the 
experiment, which is simply an incumbrance to the argument 
rather than a demonstration. 



i8 

A VINDICATION OF MANURE. 

T?lie following article, which appeared in several agricultural 
Journals, had the effect, as I was gratified to find, of drawing 
out from the'Prof essor an elaborate reply, and also a hope, courte- 
ously expressed in a letter to me, that it might lead to further 
friendly discussion. It is therefore here submitted, together with 
the discussion arising out of it. 

".There is nothing more discouraging to those engaged in hus- 
t)andry than errors committed by scientific men writing in the 
interest of agriculture. The prosperity of farmers so largely 
depends on their readiness to accept the conclusions of science 
that anything tending to weaken their confidence in its profes- 
sors rises to the importance of a national misfortune. 

In this view the position taken by Prof. Ville and Prof. Stock- 
bridge, in regard to barnyard manure, would seem to be of ques- 
tionable policy, even if tenable and sound. But let us glance 
briefly at the doctrine of these prominent writers, and see 
whether their conclusions are really justified by the facts. 

^'It has been claimed," says Prof. Ville, " that the meadow is 
the foundation of all good agriculture, because with the meadow 
we have cattle, and with cattle manure. These axioms are now 
veritable heresy. I hope to show you that agriculture to be remu- 
nerative must be founded on artificial manures." Again: *' The 
intervention of animals being a necessity of circumstances, 
manure is produced, and we are compelled to take notice of it." 

In like manner, Prof. Stockbridge is equally positive in claim- 
ing that chemical fertilizers have emancipated husbandry from 
the need of animal dung. In reporting his own experimental 
corn crop, he describes his method of feeding plants as ** the 
cheapest of all methods of producing them ; and cheapen' than 
barnyard manure,'' Like Prof. Ville, he seems to regard barn- 
yard manure as a sort of necessary evil, a wasle product of the 
fartiiy to be utilized simply because it is there. 

Let us now see if there are not soma facts of experience, some 
conclusions of practical men, as well as scientific authority that 
may tend to correct this erroneous estimate of barnyard manure. 



19 
EXPERIMENT OF DR. DANA. 

From the elaborate experiment made by Dr. Samuel L. Dana it 
appears that an average cow, kept on a daily ration of twenty 
four pounds of hay, and twelve and one-half pounds of potatoes, 
will yield, in addition to her liquid evacuations, over 31,000 lbs. 
of dung per year, containing 189 lbs. of ammonia, which, with 
other included elements amount in chemical valuation to over 
$40. By the same authority it also appears that the liquid man- 
ure amounts to over 7,000 lbs. a year, and surpasses the solid 
dung in value in the ratio of two to one. This makes the total 
value of the manure more than equal to the entire cost of feeding. 
He further states that " 100 lbs. of cattle urine afford about eight 
pounds of the most powerful salts ever used by farmers." 

ESTIMATE OF PROF. JOHNSON. 

It is estimated by Prof. Johnson that a ton of clover contains 
potash, phosphoric acid and nitrogen sufficient to make it worth 
$17.57 for manure, while a ton of bran or of peas is worth, by the 
same standard, over $22. And some other feeds have a still high- 
er manurial value. In the above experiment of Dr. Dana the 
daily ration of hay was equivalent to four and one-fourth tons a 
year. Now if this ration had been clover instead of hay, the 
manurial value per year would have been over $72, according to 
the authority of Prof. Johnson. These conclusions, resulting as 
they do from both] practical and chemical investigation, are 
further confirmed by the experience of successful farmers. 

JOSIAH QUINCY, JR. 

This gentleman has found that a goad cow, when kept on the 
soiling system, vields three and one-half cords of solid dung per 
annum, which, by the addition of muck, may be more than doubl- 
ed, both in quantity and value, and that the liquid manure when 
absorbed with muck is worth still more than the solid, making 
an aggregate of more than fourteen cords, worth from $5 to $8 a 
«ord. And further it appears that the total manure from each 
cow, when thus treated, is equivalent, on a yearly average, to the 
value of the milk. 



JOSEPH HARRIS, 

"who probably knows as miieh about manure and more about pigs 
than most farmers, has estimated that he got forty-one and three- 
fourth cents worth of manure from pigs that were fed at a cost 
of thirty-seven and one-half cents per week, thus showing that the 
value of the manure covered the whole cost of feeding, and left 
a net margin of profit besides. 
Again the memorable yield of Indian corn obtained by 

J. W. DICKEY, 

of Pennsylvania, which amounted to 169 bushels per acre, was 
the product of a soil previously pastured by sheep, and the success 
of the yield was largely attributed by Dr. Dickey to the fertilizing 
value of sheep manure. 

In another memorable instance the prodigious yield of corn, 
amounting to 200 bushels per acre, which was obtained by 

DR. J. W. PARKER, 

of South Carolina, was mainly the result of two liberal ap- 
plications of barn-yard dung, one of which was spread and 
plowed in the fall, and the other was applied in like manner in 
the following spring. 

Another instance, elsewhere stated, is still more directly to 
the point, as the experiment was made for tlie very purpose of 
testing the superiority of chemicals over animal dung, while the 
result was entirely in iavor of the dung. This elaborate experi- 
ment of 

DR. E. L. STURTEVANT 

is full of instruction, and deserves the attention it has attracted. 
The manurial value of corn, fed to pigs, according to Mr. 
Harris, is a little over half a cent a pound for the grain fed, 
■which is equivalent to thirty cents a bushel. This estimate pre- 
sents a still more striking view of the Doctor's experiment. It 
shows that his hundred bushels of corn, produced by good ma- 
T>nre from a single acre, at a cost of twenty-nine cents, was 
worth more in the manurial value alone than all the cost of rais- 



ing it. Yet wo are told by Prof. Stockbridge that barn-yard 
dung is but a waste product of the farm.. Now, the question I 
wisli to ask here is this: How much does it diminish the value 
of the results here cited, to say that the barn-yard dung from 
which they were produced is a wasie product of the farm? It is 
easy to perceive that what are called waste products are only 
such while we permit them to be wasted. Just as soon as we be- 
gin to utilize them their character is changed, and they are 
waste products no longer. If animal dung is really a waste pro- 
duct, how amazing is the delusion of Mr. Harris and thousands 
of other farmers who are continually purchasing malt combs, 
bran and oil-cake, not only for their feeding value, but also be- 
cause they make rich manure." 

As soon as the above communication had appeared in print 
Prof. Stockbridge sent in his very able reply, which was promptly 
published in the same journal, accompanied with my rejoinder, 
and afterwards reproduced in the Massachusetts Plowman, from 
which, however, my rejoinder was excluded, contrary to agreement. 

Yet this arbitrary proceeding has proved to be of little moment, 
as it has not by any means arrested the progress of truth, and free 
discussion. Having enlisted in this debate under a deep convic- 
tion of the importance of the subject to every farmer in the coun- 
try, I propose to keep my ground, and finish the work. If the 
editor of the Plowman sees fit to suppress entirely the argument 
of one side, that is a matter between himself and his readers. If 
they can afford it, no one else need object. I shall show before 
this discussion is ended that the theory of exact formulas is both 
unsound and unsafe; that it has not only never been proved, but 
never can be, for the simiDle reason that it is contradictory to 
natural laws, and that in nearly all the cases reported as satisfac- 
tory, the success is apparent rather than real, as a more thorough 
examination will show. When these facts are made to appear, 
it will be of little consequence whether the Plowman shall see fit 
to admit them by a i^rudent silence, or boldly come forward to 
refute them. 



22 

But meantime the first thing in order is to.siibmit here my 
answer to the Professor in which it will be seen that his positions 
are fairly refuted. 

The following is my 

EEJOINDER TO THE PROFESSOR'S ARGUMENT. 

In opening his argument to meet my position, Prof. Stock- 
bridge appears to be under the impression that I have not done 
full Justice to his opinion relating to barnyard manure, and I am 
now gratified to learn that he has a better opinion of that mater- 
ial than has generally been supposed. 

Yet the fact still remains evident that some of his views on this 
subject, as well as the similiar views of Prof Ville, are not entirely 
sound, and tend to depreciate the value of animal dung in the 
estimation of farmers. To most farmers a valuable product and 
a icaste product are phrases which convey very diflferent ideas 
and should not be applied to the same thing. 

But it can hardly be worth while to dwell on this point. 
Phraseology is always more or less a matter of taste, in which 
every man has a right to suit himself. And yet it is true that a 
single phrase sometimes becomes the means of propagating 
error. 

But Prof. Stockbridge has made an issue on yard manure that 
is more clear and unmistakable than this. When he says it is 
not necessary nor even desirable to keep cattle for the express 
purpose of making manure to renovate our fields with, he opposes 
the convictions and experience of the soundest practical farmers, 
many of whom have redeemed their land from sterility, by this 
means alone, when other means have failed. 

It will be found that the farming lands of this country, as a 
rule, retain their fertilility the longest, and Recover it the most 
readily and surely in those cases where the stock of the farm is 
sufficient to consume its products. In fact experience has proved 
that it often pays the farmer to go beyond this limit, and to in- 
crease his stock, even beyond the feeding capacity of his 
acres. This is the opinion of nearly all of our thriftiest farmers. 



2$ 

and it is also one of the secrets of successful farming in England, 
where the average yield per acre is nearly double the product of 
our own country, and where the farmers understand the import- 
ance of manure and are shrewd enough to increase its value by 
using American cotton seed and oil cake, which our farmers will 
some day be wise enough to use at home. 

But the Professor says that I have attempted to prove *' that 
animal excrement has a greater valufe than the crops consumed 
to produce it." I have not even claimed, much less have I at- 
tempted to prove it. 1 cited certain figures from an experiment 
of Dr. Dana, as making the value of the manure more than equal 
to the cost of the feed. But the difference between cost and 
value, from the standpoint of the farmer is very material. 

CHEMICAL FIGUEES. 

In applying to any given case the chemical value of manure, as 
derived from analysis, I do not necessarily affirm, the soundness or 
accuracy of that value. How far it is a test, is a matter that still 
remains to be considered. Most of the cases I have cited are taken 
from the experience of farmers, and are independent of chemical 
figures. But in all the cases referred to, the facts alone are suffi- 
cient for my purpose. Yet so far as the testimony of chemistiy 
is of value to the farmer, my position is made stronger by it. 

I have nowhere said, as he intimates, that Dana's cow consumed 
food to the value of $92, and produced manure worth $120, 
These are simply the figures of Prof. Stockbridge, and not mine, 
nor Dr. Diina's, as Avill more fully appear shortly. 

Again, I have nowhere affirmed the value of the food consumed 
by Harris'pig, nor the value ot the excreta it produced. Isim})ly 
gave his statement of the cost of the feed, and his estimate of the 
value of the manure based on chemical figures. These figures 
ought certainly to shed some light on the subject, and they un- 
doubtedly do. It is something for the farmer to know what 
proportion of nitrogen, i^otash, lime, etc., are contained in a ton 
of hay, corn meal or bran. If the science that reveals this does not 



24 

iuform him also how much of these elements are at once available 
as manure, nor in what way they may be made available, this only 
shows that chemical science has still an important work to do. 
Meanwhile the farmer, while waiting for this illumination, must 
resort to other sources of knowledge. How to make plant food 
available is the information he needs and is bound to have, either 
by the aid of chemistry or by practical experiments of his own. 

We now come to the next stage of the Professor's argument, in 
which he presents his case vigorously, and makes his points with 
admirable skill and inimitable humor. 

"Did these animals," he inquires, " take out of their food any 
of its elements to make milk, bone or muscle! If not, they 
w^ere peculiar and profitable animals, if they were not themselves 
consumed ; but especially if the cow gave a fine quantity of 
milk, and the pig increased in weight as fast as Harris's pigs 
generally do. If this is really true, if there is no mistake about 
it, it opens 

A XEW BEANCH OF INDUSTKY 

for the farmer, and crops are the waste or raw material, and 
manure the realaud valuable product. The problem of perpetual 
motion is solved, and * how to make something out of nothing.' " 

In regard to the first inquiry above, it is enough to say at present 
that the chemical elements absorbed from the food of animals 
to maintain their functions amount, on a general average, to a 
loss of about five per cent, in the value of the manure. This is 
tiie estimate of good judges, including, among others, Mr. Harris, 
who has examined the subject closely. But to remove all doubt 
on this point, let us put the loss at ten per cent. How far this 
loss afifects the question in hand will be made sufficiently evident 
in the course of this discussion. 

But the Prof essor intimates that the examples I have cited tend 
to "open a new branch of industry," in which, "crops are the 
waste or raw material and manure the real and valuable product." 



Tills idea, tlioagli iuteuded as irouy, is not bj any means so 
absurd as he seems to think. As a practical farmer, Prof. Stock- 
bridge can liardly fail to know that crops, in certain cases are 
used to-day, and have been for a long time, as raw material for 
creating manure, and often with decided advantage. Whenever 
practical farmers plow into the soil a crop of buckwheat or 
clover, expressly to feed the following croj), or whenever they a^)- 
ply wheat bran, corn meal, cotton seed, &c., directly as manure, 
which is sometimes tried and found to pay, then they are literal- 
ly using one croxj as the raw material for feeding an other, and 
we now learn for the first time, that in doing this, they are 
revealing the mystery of perpetual motion, and teaching man- 
kind how to make something out of nothing. 

But this subject is too fruitful to be now exhausted, and must 
be left for further investigation, in another treatise, when I expect 
to show that feeding animals for the express purpose of making 
manure is capable of being made much more profitable than 
many of us suppose, and that it will probably become a distinct 
feature, if not a sejjarate industry in the farming of the future. 
It will also then be shown that the progress of Ijusbandry and the 
profit of farming are hereafter to depend in large measure on 
improving the quality and increasing the amount of barnyard 
manure (in connection with chemical elements,) and that 
these results are only to be developed through a series of experi- 
ments entirely new, and different from anything in the experience 
of the past.'" 

But Prof, Stockbridge seems surprised to learn that the dung 
produced by Dana's cow largely exceeded the weight of her food, 
and the difference, he thinks, must be due to the water she drank. 

Skillfully as this fact is presented by the Professor, and formid- 
able as he makes it appear, yet a moment's reflection dispels 
the illusion, and we cease to be astonished. 

The simple fact that the water which animals drink adds to 
the. amount of their dung, and yet does not increase its fertilizing 

* This entire subject will be fully discussecl in my fortliconiing treatise on 
" Barnyard Manure." 



26 

Talue, has long beeu familiar to observing farmers, and should 
hardly appear surprising to a man of science. But conceding for 
the sake of courtesy that this is a wonderful fact, what does it after 
all amount to ? It is enough for me to show that the food con- 
sumed by the cow in this case will account for a'sufficient amount 
of valuable elements in the dung for my purpose, and it matters 
very little whether diflferent chemists, in estimating these ele- 
ments, differ from each other or not. After allowing for all dis- 
agreement, I find the nett result of their testimony confirming 
my position. If Dr. Dana has rated the value of cow dung a trifle 
too high, or if Prof. Stockbridge has rated it much too low (as 
will be seen directly), in either case the real question is not 
affected. 

My position is that animal dung has a greater value than the 
theory of either Ville or Stockbridge concedes to it. To show 
this, I have cited various examples in practical farming that seem 
clear and convincing. I have also cited the main facts and figures 
of an experiment by Dr. Dana. Yet I do not claim that he is in- 
fallible, although his figures are confirmed by other authorities. 
If he finds in cow dung the amount of elements w^hich he affi- 
rms, or even any where near the amount, then I am warranted 
in accepting his figures as chemical testimony in favor of animal 
manure, even though the science of chemistry is still at work on 
an unfinished problem, and cannot yet tell the farmer all he needs 
to know. 

A REMARKABLE CASE OF AMMONIA. 

"But again," says the Profepsor, "Dana states that the 30,000 
pounds of solid dung contained 189 pounds of ammonia. That is 
a remarkable statement. But the food she ate did not contain 
that quantity of ammonia before she substracted anything from 
it. The 4.88 tons of hay and 76.08 bushels of potatoes contained 
but 128,173 lbs. of nitrogen, equal to 149,613 of ammonia, and 
this is all it could have, if her system absorbed none of it, and 
it all went into her solid dung." 

Now, on comparing the above figures of Prof. Stockbridge 
with other authorities, I find the amount of food consumed by 



27 

the coAv duriug the year was suffieient to account for an amount 
of ammonia not only much greater than the Professor makes it, 
but even quite beyond the amount (189 lbs.) mentioned by Dr. 
Dana. 

According to Prof. J. F. W. Johnston, the nitrogen in a ton 
of hay amounts to 30 lbs. , according to Lawes and Gilbert to 33. 6 
lbs.; and these estimates are confirmed by Prof. Stockbridge 
himself, who, in his formula for one ton of hay calls for 36 lbs. of 
nitrogen. If then we take the estimate 0f Lawes and Gilbert, the 
hay consumed by the cow in one year (8,760 pounds) contained 
147 lbs. of nitrogen, equal to 179 lbs. of ammonia. 

The nitrogen in potatoes, according to Prof. Johnson is 1.5 
per cent., which on the yearly consumption (4,562 lbs.) would be 
68)^ lbs., equal to ammonia, 83|^ pounds* 

This makes the total ammonia in the food of the cow for one 
year equal to 262)v< lbs. If from this we deduct 10 per cent., 
which is double the proportion usually allowed for the nutriment 
taken out of the food by the animal system, it leaves about 236' 
lbs. Yet Prof. Stockbridge informs us that the total ammonia in 
her food for one year is only a little over 149 lbs., and this, he 
adds, ** is all it could have if her system absorbed none of it, and 
it all went into her solid dung." 

"But more remarkable yet," says the Professor, " this milch 
cow which discharged in her solid dung more nitrogen than was 
contained in all her food in its original condition, at the same time 
voided 7,000 pounds of urine, which in consequence of the ferti- 
lizing elements it derived from her food was worth two to one of 
the solid. With tl>ese facts In mind, note now the great money 
value of the excrements of the cow. The solid dung which con- 
tained more than all the elements originally in her food, were^ 
worth, it is stated, $40, the elements in the urine, which were 
worth two to one, $80; the whole worth, of course, $120. Now,. 
this cannot be true." 

Most certainly it is not true. But, as I have already stated, 
these are the Professor's figures, and nobody else is reponsible- 



28 

for tiiem. When I cited Dana's estimate of the purine at 7,000 
pounds a year, and as surpassing the solid dung in value in the 
ratio of two to one, the only rational meaning ot' the statement is 
that 7,000 pounds of the liquid manure are worth twice as much 
.as 7,000 pounds of solid dang. This is so clear that it ought not 
to need explanation. But the total solid dung is rated at $40, 
which gives $9.33 as the value of 7,000 pounds. Now, if we 
double this sum for the urine (making its value two to one of the 
solid), we have $18. 66. This makes the entire value of the manure 
for one year $58.66, which is less than half the amount curiously 
cyphered out by the Professor, who has made the ratio of values 
more than four to one. 

To shed further light on this subject, I commend Prof. Stock- 
bridge to a statement in the ScientifiG Farmer for January, 1877, 
from which it appears that the nitrogen and potash] in the urine 
of a cow, as deduced from experiments by Boussingalt, and based 
on the theoretical vaUiation of Prof. Groessman, has a value of 
over $34 a year, and the Farmer adds that Boussiugalt places the 
value at $50. 

This estimate of $34 for the nitrogen and potash of the urine, 
the Scientific Farmer considers a safe estimate, and the editor 
of the New England Farmer concludes from these figures that the 
iofcal yearly value of the manure of an average cow cannot be less 
than $62.90, without including phosphoric acid. 

EXPERIMENT OF MR. LA WES. 

Professor Stockbridge assures us that the real value of animal dung 
has been exhaustively examined iu the experiments of Lawes and 
Gilbert. If this is true, if these experiments really prove what he 
claims, then the Professor has made a point. But let us first see how 
the case actually stands. 

It is not denied that in the barley experiment of Mr. Lawes the ef" 
feet of ammonia salts was decidedly good, and the trial was probably 
a, fair test of the efficiency of this fertilizer for the soil and crop to which 
it was applied. Yet it is equally clear that this series of trials was not 
by any means a true test for animal dung, nor at all conclusive as to its 
%^alue. 



29 

An examinatiou of these experiments wonld necessarily include .some 
topics not pertaining to the main qnestion now in hand, yet I must 
brifly refer to some points that seem to have been left comparatively out 
of view: 

1. And firs! let me say, there appears to be a mistake or oversight in 
regard to the highest yield of barley from barn-yard manure. Mr. Har- 
ris has several times cited in the Agriculturist the leading facts relating 
to these barley experiments. In one of these statesments he says, refer- 
ring to the experiment above described, the average yield for 19 crops 
grown on the same laud each year was 48 bushels per acre on both plot«. 
But in another place, he says the plot that was manured every year with 
yard manure averaged 54^ bushels per acre and over 1| tons of straw. 
Mr. Harris can doubtless shed some further light on this point. 

2. But again, is it correct to say that 41 lbs. of nitrogen in aiumo- 
niated salts produced as much eifect as 200 lbs. of nitrogen in the ma- 
nure ? If this is so, and if the yield of barley depended entirely upon 
the single element of nitrogen, why was it necessary, on the fertilized 
plot, to supplement the nitrogen with mineral salts, even in the propor- 
tion of more than 7 to 1. If, on the other hand, these elements were 
useful, or essential, if they really added to the yield, why give the ex- 
clusive credit to the ammonia ? And further, if these salts were found 
profitable in this case, why not make them equally profitable, by apply- 
ing them also as a supplement to the manure ? If Mr. Lawes, instead 
of applying the manure to excess, had used one-half or two-thirds of the 
quantity, and replaced the part omitted with mineral salts of the right 
kind and ill the right proportion, it is nearly certain the result would have 
been more profitable, but in any event the experiment would have been 
far more instructive. 

3. Again, it appears from the product of the unmanured plot that the 
natural yield of the land sown to barley was 23 bushels per acre. This 
indicated that the natural supply of nitrogen in the soil was about 28 
lbs. per acre. Now the manured crop, with its yield of 48 bushels, 
Avould take from the soil, according to Hams, 56 lbs. of nitrogen per 
acre. (Lavres makes it more than this, Wolff and others make it less.) 
But as the natural supply of nitrogen in the soil was equal to 28 lbs, 
per acre, the crop would only take out 28 lbs. more; making the total 
abstracted in 19 years equal to 532 lbs., while the nitrogen added to the 
soil during the same time by manure, as estimated by Lawes and Har- 



so 

lis, was 3,800 lbs. This would leave a balance of accumulated nitrogen 
in the soil at the end of 19 years (if none had leached out), equal to 3,268 
ibs., instead of 1,736 lbs., as given by Harris. 

If, then, we assume the loss of this nitrogen by drainage to be even 
20 per cent, there would still remain in the soil at the end of the experi- 
ment over 2, 600 pounds more than it contained at the beginning. From 
this it appears that though the application of manure in the first year 
of the experiment was but 14 tons, yet by annual accumulation it was 
equivalent at the twentieth year to 14 tons, plus 2,600 pounds of ni- 
trogen. 

Does not this clearly show that too much manure was applied ? We 
have found that half the nitrogen needed for a yield of 48 bushels per 
acre was already in the soil waiting for the crops, and only 28 pounds 
more per year were needed. If to secure this Mr. Lawes found itneces^ 
sary to api^ly 28,000 pounds of barnyard dung each year, in addition to 
the accumulation of former years, it simply jjroves that something was 
wrong either in the manure or in the method, or possibly in both, and it 
should hardly require more than three or four years to make the dis- 
covery . 

After investigating and testing yard manure in this series of trials for 
nineteen years, and in some other cases for nearly twice that period, if 
he still finds, as the net result of so much time and effort and outlay 
that nothing less than 200 pounds of nitrogen in manure will insure 28 
Ijounds of available nitrogen for the crop (and that this 200 pounds will 
require 28,000 pounds of manure to iDroduceit.) I have enly to say 
that there are very many farmers in this country, aiid doubtless in 
England also, whose experience practically contradicts this conclusion, 
and who find little or no difficulty in getting larger yields and lower 
cost than the above ratios imply. 

There is undoubtedly a right mode of treatment for animal dung that 
will put nitrogen into it, and another mode of treatment that will keep 
it there till it is wanted, and there is still another method that will bring 
the nitrogen out of the manure when the growing crop requires it. 
There is also a mode of experiment that will reveal to the farmer the 
right treatment for this manure, and that will produce a material more 
rich iu nitrogen than 200 lbs. to 14 tons, and in which the nitrogen is 
more available for the eiop than is implied by the ratio of 1 lb. in 
1,000. 



31 

Bat the syytem of experiments that will give such results as theee is 
not limited to one unvarying standard of quantity without increase or 
diminution, and without any addition of other elements to relieve the 
monotony of 14 tons a year for a whole generation. 

It is also equally certain that the results I have described are not to 
be had from a quality of manure in which the actual dung is 1-5 of the 
whole, while the remaining 4-5 are only straw. Yet this I infer from a 
recent lecture of Mr. Lawes is the character of the manure used in his 
experiments. 

But I have also seen it stated that it is the practice of Mr. Lawes to 
.apply the liquid portion of his manure mostly to his grass land. If this 
is true, and if the barn yard dung used in his experiments on cereal 
«iops is simply the solid portion of the manure apart from the liquid ; 
this fact will still further diminish the value of his experiments with 
animal dung. 

Now if, in the case of these barley crops, the quality of the manure 
is such that the crop can only get 1 pound of available nitrogen from 
1,000 pounds of the dung, this clearly shows the necessity, not only of 
improving the manure, but of varying and multiplying the forms of the 
experiment. Unless this is done, the experiment ceases to be instruc- 
tive, and cannot be accepted as a fair test either of the value or the pos- 
sibilities of animal dung. 

HOW TO GET AMMONIA. 

Prof. Stockbridge seems to be under the impression that Harris has a 
lively faith in chemical figures when applied to chemical elements, but 
'very little respect for them when they appear to give value to animal 
dung. 

On this point let us take the testimony of Mr. Harris himself. After 
citing Professor Johnson's figures for the manurial value of malt dust, 
•bran and meal, he says: 

" To a farmer who buys as much bran and other feed for sheep and 
.and pigs as I do, there must be encouragement in these figures," and 
though he considers them too high, he adds, ♦* we certainly ought to 
be able to make considerable profit from feed'n;^ stock, a&d making 
manure on our farms." This is precisely the thing that the Pi'ofessor, 
iin one of his addresses, has assured us it is not necesyary, nor ece^t tU- 



3^ 

sirable to do. Yet Mr. Harris, in his experience, finds it profiiaUe to do 
so, and also finds encouraganent in doing so, from the chemical figures 
of Prof. Johnson. 

In another place he tells ns he enriches his land hj feeding clover to 
animals, and returning the manure to the soil, rather than plowing it 
under, and finds that this plan, while it produces as much grain "adds 
greatlj' to the fertility of the land, and gives an increased production 
of beef, mutton, wool, butter, cheese and pork." 

Again, to a correspondent, who inquires for the best wv^y to get am- 
monia, he replies: 

"How to get ammonia at the cheapest rate, is the great question of 
scientific agriculture. Keeping sheep and raising clover, rape, mustard, 
peas and other highly nitrogenous crops to feed them on, and buying 
some bran, oil cake, &c., in addition, is as good a plan as I can sug- 
gest." 

In another passage he advises to "keep sheep, and buy bran enough 
to give each sheep from one to two pounds per day in addition to clover 
and straw." He then adds: 

"There is no cheaper way of getting manure." 

In still another passage Mr. Harris refers to the experience of Lawes 
and Gilbert, in favor of animal manure. After citing a remarkable yield 
of clover from sulphate of potash, he gives an account of another clover 
crop, grown on a garden soil, when no fertilizers were used, but only 
j^ard manure from time immemorial, and the result was over nine tons 
per acre . 

THE MONEY VALUE OF COW MANURE. 

Prof. Stockbridge claims that in the case of Dana's cow, the money 
value of the manure, according to Lawes' experiment, was only $24 a 
year. Let us now see if this is so. 

When we come to speak of the real value of manure, we pass at once 
from the laboratory to the field. It is no longer a question of anal3^sis^ 
or of the market price of ammonia, but simply of the actual money 
value that comes back to the farmer for the manure used, including 
also the increased fertility imparted to his land. In this view of the 
question, how does the case stand ? Mr. Lawes apiDlied 14 tons of yard 
manure and got an increase of barley equal to 25 bushels of grain, and 
1,580 pounds of strow. He also added to this land an amount of fer- 
tility represented by the unused manure. If these 25 bushels of barley 



33 

together with the straw, were worth $30, and if half the manure i» 
charged to future crops, then the $30 will show the agricultural value 
of seven tons of manure, which would be $4.28 per ton. 

Now, it is not material whether these figures for barley are exact ov 
not. They are probably too low. But they show sufficiently the direction 
and force of the argument. 

If Mr. Lawes finds in seven tons of barnyard manure (consisting of 
four-fifths litter and one-fifth dung) a real value of $30, how far does 
this go to settle the value of a year's product of manure in the case of 
Dana's cow, wherein the material was pure dung, and the amount was 
15 tons of fresh manure and 7,000 pounds of urine ? As I have already 
said, I do not consider the barley experiments a true test of the value- 
of animal dung. But in this case, if they prove anything, they prove 
that the manurial product of Dana's cow for a year was worth not $24, 
but nearly three times that amount. They would make it at least equal 
to the estimate of the New England Farmer, which was based on the 
figures of Boussingalt and Goessman. 

I cannot, therefore, 'agree with the professor that the real value of 
animal dung has been exhaustively investigated in the barley experi- 
ments. If this is so, It certainly does not appear in the cases referred 
to by the professor, nor in any of the citations of Mr. Harris. 

Did Mr. Lawes, at any stage of these barley experiments, try the ef^ 
feet of a smaller quantitj' of manure gradually increased through suc- 
cessive years ? Or what would have been still better, did he, without 
discontinuing the 14 tons, introduce other plots, with less quantities of 
dung, for the purpose of comparison ? If he did, and no results are 
given, then the facts referred to by Prof. Stockbridge, and Mr. Harris-, 
are only a part of the experiment. On the other hand, if Mr. Lawes 
has not thus extended his investigation, so as to cover the whole ground 
of this inquiry, how does he know that 14 tons of yard manure was the 
smallest quantity that would give 48 bushels of barley per acre ? 

Is it not clear that if more conditions had been added to this experi- 
ment, it would have been much more instructive as to the actual value 
of manure ? It was, doubtless, a grand experiment for other purposes, 
and it certainly shed much new light on various important questions. 

I am far from disparaging the vast results that loere obtained in this,. 
as in all the other investigations of the great English farmer. But I ob- 



34 

ject to claiming results that were not obtained. I find no fault with the 
14. tons of manure, considered as one of ike factors of this trial. Nor do 
1 at all object to the long period of time through which they were con- 
tinued. Time is certainly a great element in experiments, and for some 
purposes, is even indispensable. 

But a long period is not equally indispensable in all cases. The 
point I contend for is simplj^ that if certain other conditions requiring 
less manure and less time had been added to these trials, they would 
iiave given another series of results, that are now entirely lacking, and 
which would have gone far to settle the actual value of barn yard 
ananure . 

If, for example, the trial had included other jdIoIs with eight, ten and 
twelve tons respectively of yard dung, and still another with sixteen or 
eighteen tons, and if it had also included several plots to show the effect 
of different qualities of manure, it is easy to see that the light thus 
poured upon the question would have been nearly equal to a demonstra- 
tion. 

Instead of this, the question of manure was here tested, as to its actual 
^alue, with only a single factor of 14 tons per acre, (annually increased 
t)y accumulation till the surplus nitrogen in the soil was probably over 
:2,000 pounds) without any appreciable increase of crop, and yet we are 
^old that this is an exhaustive investigation, final and conclusive as to 
the real value of barn yard dung, and that in a soil yielding 23 bushels 
per acre without manure nething less than 14 tons of animal dung will 
^ive an increase of barley equal to twenty -five bushels per acre. 



THE FORMULAS EXAMINED, 

Having now fully considered, and fairly met the various 
points thus far made in the defense of this theory, it only remains 
to consider briefly the essential facts and figures on which the 
system rests, and from which the formulas are constructed. 

The following brief extracts from one of the Professor's lectures 
will sufficiently indicate the chemical foundation on which the 
theory rests: 

" The elements which form all our agricultural plants are silica, 
lime, potash, magnesia, soda, phosphoric acid, sulphuric acid, 
and chlorine, found in the ash ; and carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, 
and nitrogen, composing the aerial portion. 

"Any element found in a plant, in its normal condition, how- 
ever small the quantity, is a necessary constituent of that plant, 
and all elements not needed by the law of its composition are 
rejected. 

" With rare exceptions the ash constituents are found in all 
soils, either free, or in some of their many combinations ; and the 
organic elements always surround the plant both in the soil and 
in the air. 

"Whatever aid the farmer may render the forces of nature in 
preparing food from the crude elements of the soil, the plants 
will consume the material faster than these forces can supply it. 
If, therefore, he would maintain the fertility of the soil, he must 
supply this deficiency by the application either of bulky material 
which can produce plant-food faster than the soil, or of the 
elements themselves in an available condition." 

35 



36 

*'The question here arises, is it not necessary to apply all tbe 
elements of nutrition, as tliey are all essential to the proper 
gi'owth of the plant ? It has been proved that of the four organic 
elements entering into the structure of crops, only nitrogen wiD 
ever need to be applied to the plant, for the others esist in a free 
and obtainable condition throughout all nature. It is likewise 
true that, with rare exceptions, the soil will manufacture with 
sufficient rapidity for all the needs of the crop, all the inorganic 
elements, with the exception of potash and i3hosphoric acid. 
Therefore, as an almost absolute rule, the three elements — nitro- 
gen, potash and phosphoric acid — are the only ones which need 
to be supplied. " 

" It must be distinctly understood that only three elements of 
nutrition need be sup]3lied to plants ; not because they are- 
indifferent to the presence of the others, but that nature can be 
depended onto supply them in abundance." 

From these data the Professor has devised a method for apply- 
ing the elements of plant-food to the various crops of the 
farm, so arranged that each crop has a formula adapted to its own 
requirements. 

Let us now examine the principles on which the formulas are 
arranged, and see whether they can be relied on, as being at once^ 
both sound in theory, and safe in practice. One thing at least 
is clear. If the elements of plant-food are here rightly discrim- 
inated, and if the theory is unmistakably sound, it is certainly 
important, and ought to be generally understood, and widely 
proclaimed. But are we quite sure that the principle of selecting 
and excluding chemical elements, as applied in these fommlas, is 
really correct ? Are we very certain that 

"ONLY THEEE ELEMENTS NEED BE SUPPLIPJD TO PLANTS?" 

and are all the other constituents actually found in the soil at the 
time required, and in the right condition ? 



37 
In further examining and answering these inquiries, the fol- 
lovring /oi'7iiulas, as published in the report of Amherst College, 
will perhaps be convenient for reference, and help to make the 
subject more clear, 

POTATOES. 

To produce one hundred bushels of potatoes per acre, and their 
natural proportion of tops more than the natural product of the 
iand, and for other quantities in like proportion, use 

Nitrogen 21 pounds. 

Potash 34 " 

Phosphoric acid 11 *' 

Total 66poauds. 

In the form of 

Sulph. Amnion, 24 per cent, dry salt 105 pounds. 

Potash 35 " " 225 

Superphos. 13 " sol. acid ..85 " 

Total 415 pounds. 

RED CLOVER. 

To produce one ton of clover per acre more than the natural 
yield of the soil, use 

Nitrogen 43 pounds. 

Potash 40 

Phosphoric acid 11 " 

Total 94 pounds. 

In the form of 

Sulph Ammon, 24 per cent, dry salt 215 pounds. 

Mur. Potash, 80 " «♦ 80 

Superphos. 13 *' sol. acid 85 " 

Tot^l 380 pounds. 

INDIAN CORN. 

To produce fifty bushels of the grain, and its natural propor 



38 

tion of stover to the acre more than the natural yield of the soil, 

and in like proportion for other quantities, use 

Nitrogen 64 pounds. 

Potash 77 

Phos. Acid .31 

Total 172 pounds. 

In the form of 

Sulph. Ammonia, 24 par cent, of dry salt 320 pounds. 

Mur. Potash 80 " " " 154 " 

Superphosphate 13 " sol. acid 248 " 

Total 722 pounds. 

WHEAT. 

To produce twenty-five bushels of wheat, and the natural pro- 
portion of straw per acre more than the natural yield of the 
land, and in like proportion for other quantities, use 

Nitrogen 41 pounds. 

Potash 24 

Phos. Acid 20 

Total 85 pounds. 

In the form of 

Sulph. Ammonia. 24 per cent, of dry salt 205 pounds. 

Mur. Potash, 80 " '• " 48 

Superphos. 13 ' ' sol. acid 160 ' ' 

Total .413 pounds. 

TURNIPS. 
To produce one hundred bushels of turnips and their tops 
more than the natural yield of a given area of land, and in like 
proportion for other quantities, use 

Nitrogen 11 pounds. 

Potash 18 

Ph05. Acid 8 

Total 37 pounds. 



39 

In the form of 

Snlpb. Ammon. 24 per cent, dry salt 55 pouncTb, 

Potash 35 - " 118 

Snperphos. 13 '• sol, acid 63 " 

Total 236 pounds. 

It will here be seen that the formulas of this theory are entirely 
made up from a small part only of the elements of plant food ; 
and what is perhaps equally remarkable, the same three material 
are called for in every case whatever the intended crop may be. 
If, for example, a farmer whose land will produce fifty bushels 
of corn per acre without manure, desires to bring the yield up to 
one hundred bushels, he has only to consult the cor7i formula 
which tells him to add, in some available form, sixty-four pounds 
of nitrogen, seventy-seven pounds of potash, and thirty-one- 
pounds of phosphoric acid. 

Another man has perhaps a clover field with a normal yield of 
only one ton per acre, but thinks he ought to get at least three- 
tons; and finds on inquiry, that, by this theory, in order to get twa 
additional tons, it is only necessary to apply eighty-six pounds- 
of nitrogen, eighty pounds of potash, and twenty-two pounds of 
phosphoric acid. He finds also that in each formula soluble 
forms of the elements are clearly specified, and the exact number 
of pounds for each is prescribed. 

Though the proportion of the materials used in this system is 
varied for different crops, it is not varied to meet differences of 
soil ; and it is also important to observe that the elements them- 
selves do not vary in any case, but remain alway the same whats 
ever the croiD and whatever the character of the soil. 

It is true there are nine or ten other elements of plant growth 
which are, in all cases, equally indispensable to crops; but these, 
we are assured, "the soil will, with rare ex eptions, manufacture 
sufficiently, for all the needs of the crop ;" and as the possible 
exceptions alluded to are so rare as not to be recognized in the 
formulas, it is clear they are considered of no account. Hence 
we find that in every section of the country, and under every 



40 

variety of conditions, wherever the banner of the formulas is un- 
furled, the same three in evitable elements re-appear, and ai-e com. 
mended to the exclusive attention of the farmer, who is expected 
to go on ringing the changes on nitrogen, potash and phosphoric 
acid, while the soil itself takes care of the lime, soda, magnesia 
and the rest. 

Now do the advocates of this system really believe that all the 
constituents of crops that are excluded from these formulas, are 
everywhere and always so munificently furnished by nature, and 
in a condition so completely available that the farmer can safely 
dismiss them from his programme ? If this is so, 

HOW HAS THE FACT BEEN ASCEKTAINED? 

and on what ground is it so positively assumed ? 

To this pertinent inquiry there does not appear to be as yet any 
sufficient or satisfactory reply. To say that "only three elements 
need be supplied to plants, because nature can be depended on 
to supply the others in abundance," and to tell us that this 
fact '*must be distinctly understood," does not by any means 
meet the case. A statement often repeated, with varied phrase- 
ology does not amount to an argument. In the present case it 
merely takes for granted one of the most vital points in the theory ; 
a iDoint which has never been proved, and never can be, simply 
because the facts of experience are against it, as I now proceed to 
show. 

The principle involved in the discussion of this point is very 
simple, and may be stated in a single sentence. Whenever any 
one or more of the plant elements omitted from these formulas is 
applied by the farmer to his land, and gives an increase of yield, 
this fact is a proof that the soil was deficient in that element, and 
hence that nature can 7iot be safely relied on. It matters not, 
whether the material he has added to the soil produces its increase 
directly, or indirectly. In either case the augmented production 
has resulted from the presence and influence of the ingredient 
Added by the farmer and if the material had been supplied by 
nature as promised in the th.eory, he would have received the 



benefit without incurring the coat. A.gain it matters not if 
another farmer in the next field, should apply either the same or 
a different element without getting an increase of yield ; for the 
two cases though apparently similar, are in reality very different 
In the latter case, the failure of increase does not necessarily prove 
that the soil was duly supplied with the element, since there are 
numerous other causes that would account for the lack of increase. 
While in the other case, the increase of crop can only be explained 
by the fact that the farmer has .added something that the soi^ 
needed, and which nature had not sufficiently supplied. 

But this is not all. The cases here compared are not yet exhaust- 
ed, and the logical result is still stronger than it appears. Sup- 
posing the last point to be entirely waived, and conceding, for 
the sake of the argument, that the second farmer has made out 
his case in favor of nature, even then, the two cases, when taken 
together, would clearly refute the claim of the theory, which is, 
that " nature can be depended on to supply the other elements in 
abundance." Hence every time the farmer increases his yield by 
applying any element except nitrogen, potash and phosphoric 
acid, he virtually refutes Ihe theory here examined. 

On the whole, tliere is but one way, so far as I can see, by 
which this claim of the professor can be shown to be valid. If 
he has already secured a standing contract with the laws of 
nature in favor of this system, and especially specifying that the 
full amount required of every chemical element outside of his 
theory shall be in all cases forthcoming, at the right time, and in 
the right proportion and condition, then the theory is all right, so 
far as this point is concerned. 

EXPERIENCE OF PRACTICAL FARMERS. 

Let us now briefly glance at a few facts illustrating this subject, 
and tending to show how easily, and how often the farmer can, 
and does apply to his land some one or more of these rejected 
elements, because he does not think it safe to assume as a certainty 
that the soil will "manufacture " them in time for his crop ; and 



42 

teDding also to show that in most of these cases the result 
proves that the farmer is right and that he makes a sure gain by 
providing for the uncertainty of spontaneous fertility too often 
expected, and too seldom realized. 

It is the practice of nearly all intelligent farmers to apply to 
their land at intervals a dressing of salt, lime, or plaster, and 
occasionally of lime and salt combined. When these applications 
are made with judgment and discrimination, they are very often 
successful, bringing an increase of yield, and sometimes a maxi- 
mum crop. These materials taken together, contain five chemi- 
cal elements of crops, neither of which is included among the 
three special ingredients of the formulas. They are also general- 
ly accessible, and rarely expensive. But according to the doctrine 
we are considering, the farmer who uses them unwisely incurs a 
needless expense, as they belong to a class of chemicals that 
nature supplies not only invariably, but "in abundance." Still 
it appears that farmers arc so incredulous on this point that they 
do use these elements and thereby secure an increase of yield. 
It would be easy to fill a volume in en^^merating such cases, but 
it is clearly not necessary. Now in every instance when these ap- 
plications are made with a profitable result, they refute the theory 
of Professor Stockbridge, for they prove that the soil has been 
found deficient, notwithstanding the bounty of nature. 

The same reasoniihg is also applicable to other chemical ele- 
ments, as soda, magnesia &c., which though less abundant and 
more expensive, are sometimes used by practical farmers with 
decided increase of yield. 

Prof. J. F. W. Johnston has cited some experiments made at 
his own suggestion by Mr. Fleming, and tending to throw light 
on this subject. A mixture of sulphate of soda with the nitrate 
in equal weights was applied to potatoes at the rate of one and 
one half hundred weight per acre, and the product was thirty 
tons. Neither of them separately produced over sixteen tons. 
This shows not only that the soil was deficient in sulphate of 
soda, but also that soda (both sulphate and nitrate) will in some 



43 
soils greatly increase the potato crop; and still further it show* 
the advantage of blending fertilizers, which often, as in this case^ 
increases, and sometimes doubles the value of each. 

In another experiment sulphate of magnesia, when added to- 
the soil in connection with nitrate of soda, increased the yield 
from sixteen to fewenty-two and a half tons, per acre. On another 
occasion Prof. Johnston, having noticed that the ash of grain is 
rich in phosphoric acid and magnesia, suggested a mixture of 
sulphate of magnesia, phosphate of soda and sulphate of 
ammonia, which was tried with marked success on wheat and 
corn. In the trial made on the corn crop, it tripled the weight 
of the stover, and increased the product of the grain six-fold. As 
this result is better than either of these chemicals produces separ- 
ately, it shows that each of them was, in this case, needed, and 
that the soil was therefore to that extent deficient. 

In another case Mr. Girwood found that an ai^plicatiou of sul- 
phate of soda to his bean crop gave an increase at the rate oi 
sixteen bushels per acre. 

EXPERIMENTS OF liATVES AND GILBERT, 

In these very careful experiments running through a series; 
of years, the manure question, as Prof. Stockbridge assures us^ 
has been elaborately discussed. Let me then invite his attention 
to the testimony of some of these experiments which clearly show 
an increase of yield by adding to the soil a variety of chemicals- 
omitted from the programme of the Professor, thus proving that 
formulas that teach farmers entirely to disregard such chemicals- 
are defective and misleading. 

Taking the average of the wheat experiments for twenty years- 
we find that the increase from nitrogen, in the form of ammonia, 
is about nine bushels per acre ; and from nitrate of soda rather 
more. The increase from superphosphate alone, during the 
same period, averaged only two and one half bushels per acre, 
and from mixed mineral manures (potash, soda, and magnesia,) 
still less. Up to this point then these trials simply indicate that 



44 

the greatest need of that soil is nitrogen. But while this infer- 
ence is sound in regard to nitrogen, yet when other plots are 
•examined, in which various materials are combined, the experi-. 
ment gives more variety of results, and teaches lessons no less 
valuable. 

When the superphosphate, which alone gave only two and a half 
bushels of increase per acre, is added to the ammonia with its in- 
crease of nine bushels, the joint result is a yield of twenty-eight 
bushels, showing a gain of thirteen bushels over the normal yield. 
Again, when to this joint result of two fertilizers is superadded 
the combined effect of the other three, which had previously 
given even less gain than the superphosphate, the total yield of 
the five elements working together rises to a product of thirty- 
five bushels ranging from that figure up to forty bushels, and 
showing a gain of twenty to twenty-five bushels. 

But what is perhaps still more important, and more to the 
purpose, it appears that when either of the three blended elements 
is added alone to the joint result of the superphosphate and am- 
monia, the total gain is still only one bushel less than when all 
.^re added together. That is to say, when to four hundred pounds 
of ammonia salts and three hundred and ninety-two pounds of 
superphosphate, are added either sulphate of potash, two hun- 
-dred pounds ; sulphate of soda, three hundred and sixty-six 
pounds; or sulphate of magnesia, two hundred and eighty pounds, 
the result is a yield ranging from thirty-four to thirty-nine bushels 
per acre, which is a gain of from nineteen to twenty-four bushels 
■over the normal yield. 

Now it is quite immaterial whether the influence of the soda, 
or the magnesia is direct or indirect in contributing to this result. 
It is enough to know that after the yield has reached its best pos- 
sibility from the ammonia alone, and from the ammonia and super- 
phosphate combined, there is a still larger result in reserve which 
is developed in the soil by the presence of either potash, soda or 
magnesia. 



45 
Nor is it material to the present purpose to show whether the- 
increase clearly due in this case to the soda or magnesia is a true 
measure of their agricultural value. In some cases they would 
probably show less results, in others doubtless larger, as proved 
by some of the cases already cited. But is it not evident from 
these and other trials, that their value to the farmer, in view of 
actual results and possibilities clearly f orshadowed, is too import- 
ant to be entirely dismissed from his attention, or left to the 
chances of finding them in the soil when required. 

The remarkable results produced by alkaline elements in con- 
nection with ammonia, as shown above, are further confirmed by 
the observations of Prof. Sillimau, who visited the farm of Mr> 
Lawes, and examined his methods for publication in the New 
York World. In his report Prof. Silliman gives an account also 
of the 

TREATMENT OF PEEMANENT GRASS LAND BY MR. LAWES, 

and of the amazing results obtained from silicate of soda in con- 
nection with other chemicals. Nearly all his facts and figures in 
relation to the hay crop point in the same direction as the wheat 
and barley experiments, and show that the greatest benefit from 
fertilizers is obtained when they are judiciously combined. The 
following passage cited from his report will interest farmers and 
will shed further light on several points relating to the topic now 
in hand. 

" Those curious in such matters will wish to know what the 
exact treatment in the case was, and the facts are of sufficient 
interest to merit the attention of any thoughtful reader. The 
treatment was exclusively by mineral manures, without a parti- 
cle of any kind of vegetable or carbonaceous substance whatever. 



46 

For example, in this particular case the annual quantities per 
acre employed were as follows, viz. : 

Pounds. 

Sulphate of potassa 300 

Sulphate of soda 100 

Sulphate of magnesia 100 

Superphosphate of lime 3^ cwt 392 

Ammonia Salts, equal parts sulphate and muriate of ammonia . . . 800 

Total per acre mineral manure 1,692 

To this quantity was added on another equal plot silicate of soda 400 



Total , 2,092 

" The silicate of soda was commenced only in 1862, or thirteen 
years after the series of experiments were entered on. Its effects 
«,re most marked, for while the average for the first twenty years 
of hay cut was about sixty -one hundred weight, it rose for the 
twenty-second season (1877) to the enormous aggregate of one 
hundred and ten hundred weight! 

"The land continuously fertilized with mineral manures of the 
above composition gave five and one-half tons of hay per acre and 
the adjacent unmanured gave two and ©ne-fifth tons. It will be 
•seen that the only source of nitrogen added by the treatment was 
from the salts of ammonia, while the [carbon was evidently 
obtained by the plants from the carbonic acid of the atmosphere, 
since not a particle of carbonaceous food was supplied and the*land 
had become practically exhausted of carbon. The chemical com- 
position of the soil in this, as in every case, for each six inches in 
depth to a total depth of fifty-four inches, was carefully determin- 
ed, and also the dry heath ash, nitrogen, woody fibre, fatty mat- 
ter and composition of ash of the crop, and the percentage by 
weight of each species of grass and other plants in the mixed 
herbage accurately determined. 

*' Nitrogen, the most essential element of fertility, perhaps, for 
both cereals and grasses, is supplied most readily by the use of 
ammoniaeal salts, but its highest effects are not attainable by the 
use of such salts alone, since the effect of such nitrogenous 



47 
fertilizers is mucli eaUanced by the use of silicate of soda; and 
ammoniacal salts alone do not effect the same results which are 
attained when they are used in connection with certain alkaline 
salts, whether sulphates or nitrates. The same or a larger amount 
of nitrogen in the form of nitrate of poda or potassa fails signally 
to promote, on grass land, the production attained by the use of 
the sulphates of the same alkaline bases when ammoniacal salts 
are used as the source of the nitrogen." 

THE WEAK LINK IN THE CHAIN. 

But there is another view of the subject, which, though too 
often overlooked, is very important. At the Connecticut Farm- 
ers' Meeting the Professor very truly remarked that " the lack of 
any single element of plant nutrition, or even of the right pro^ 
portion of any element, is fatal to the plant." Yet in prescrib- 
ing the plant food for a corn crop of fifty bushels, or a clover 
crop of one ton, while giving the exact figures of the formula for 
each, of the three elements it contains, he seems to lose sight of 
the fact, that if any one of the other nine elements should happen 
to be deficient in the soil, and thus cause either a diminished yield, 
or a total failure, then each element in the formula would be 
limited and controlled by that fact and the possibilities of the 
theory would be at once cut short, if not destroyed. 

Let us take an illustration. The soda, magnesia and lime 
required for fifty bushels of corn amount, together, to about 
eighty pounds, and for a ton of clover, to about fifty pounds. 
Now if we suppose the total amount of these elements contained 
in the corn field to reach even several thousand pounds per acre, 
and in the clover field as much more, yet if the amount of them, 
actually available as nutriment, should be, in the corn field, only 
fifty or sixty pounds , or in the clover field only twenty-five or 
thirty pounds, either of which is possible, what would be tke 
result ? Not only would the nitrogen, potash, and phosphoric 
^cid be deprived of their value, but the crop itself would be a 
failure. 



48 

To make the case still stronger, if any single element, instead 
of all three, should fall short of the amount required as nutriment 
for the crop ; if for example, the lime, or sulphuric acid should 
be sufficient only for twenty bushels of corn, or half a ton of 
clover then a thousand pounds of nitrogen, or any other consti- 
tuent would neither bring up the yield to the prescribed amount, 
nor make any impression on the result. No chain is stronger 
than the weakest link, and if a slight deficiency of supply should 
make magnesia or soda a weak link in the chain, then the phos- 
phoric acid, and all the other elements are brought to the same 
level, and that is the limit of yield for the crop. 

THIS PRINCIPIiE.OF PI>ANT-F££DINO, 

though obscure in its operation, and not alwaj s easy to detect, 
is yet immensely important. The fact that any single element of 
nutrition which by some chance is either not duly supplied, or too 
slowly developed in the soil, is thus able, by its mere deficiency, 
to hold a veto power over all the other elements and neutralize 
their effect, however abundant they may be, or however costly to 
the farmer, the mere fact, for example, that a few pounds of soda 
that happen to be absent, can outweigh ample tons of potash that 
are promptly on hand at the time required, such facts, I repeat, 
cannot be safely overlooked. 

But the obscurity that hangs over chemical processes in the soil 
makes it often difficult and sometimes impossible to meet such 
cases with timely remedies. This is a more serious and prevalent 
evil than most of us seem to realize ; and it is unquestionably one 
source of the doubt, and discouragement so frequently encoun- 
teredby intelligent practical men. It produces many unexpected 
results and seeming contradictions, often perplexing progressive 
farmers, and bringing the experience of the wisest men into col- 
lision, and more than all, it imparts to careful and elaborate ex- 
periments strange incongruities that hide their true meaning and 
value, and thus weakens the general confidence even in the sound- 
est teachings of chemical science. 



49 

THE ELEMENTS OF PliANT-EOOD MUST BE 

ADAPTED TO THE SOIL. 

Having now clearly proved that this theory has not been suc- 
cessful in adapting its formulas to the needs of the crop, which 
it distinctly claims to do, let me next proceed to show that it is 
still more unfortunate in not adapting them, nor even attempting 
to adapt them, to the needs of the soil. 

It is well known that soils differ so often, and so widely, 
in their constituent elements that a fertilizer adapted to one is 
not necessarily suited to another, and that if wrongly applied in 
a given case it may entail a loss instead of a gain. Yet these 
formulas make no distinction between rich and poor laud, nor 
do they even recognize the fact that some soils have already, in 
sufficient amount, one or more of the elements prescribed by the 
theory. 

A plan more inconsistent than this, or more opposed to true 
economy, can hardly be conceived. It involves the necessity of 
applying more plant-food than is needed, and the possibility of 
using, in some cases, three elements (two of which are not 
needed), in order to make sure of one. 

The farmer avIio undertakes to raise a wheat crop iu accord- 
ance with this doctrine, is required to apply three chemical 
fertilizers, each in a definite and fixed amount, without stopping 
to inquire how many of them, or what part of each, his land al- 
ready contains. It is deemed enough for him to know that 
25 bushels of wheat require 41 pounds of nitrogen, 24 pounds of 
potash, and 20 pounds of phosphoric acid; and that if he puts 
these several amounts into his land, the 25 bushels will be forth- 
coming at harvest. Just as if the yield per acre Avere the only 
thing to make sure of, and the cost of production Avere of no 
consequence. 

To show how this theory sometimes works in practice, in 
consequence of ignoring the condition of the soil, let us glance at 



50 

A FEW INSTEUCTIVE EXPERIMENTS. 

Tlie following statement of Professor Geo. Cook, of New 
Brunswick; giving the results of some experiments with corn, 
speaks for itself in a convincing manner: 

"These results showed a yield of 85 bushels of corn and 2f tons 
of stalks to the acre, without any fertilizer, valued at $76.47. 

An application of 100 pounds Muriate of Potash, costing $2.75 per 
acre, gave an increased value of $13.55. 

An additional application of 300 pounds Sulphate of Ammonia, and 
300 pounds Superphosphate of Lime, costing $16,65 per acre, gave an 
increased vahie of $12.68. 

An application of 400 pounds Sulphate of Ammonia and 300 pounds 
Superphosphate of Lime with the Potash, costing $26.65, gave an in- 
creased value of $13.67. 

An application of 200 pounds Sulphate of Ammonia and 500 pounds 
Superphosphate of Lime with the Potash, costing $19.25, gave an in- 
creased value of $17.31." 

Four applications were here made for testing separately and 
together the three elements contained in the corn formula. 

One of the four, in which potash was used alone, showed 
a profit of S10.80 per acre. 

In the third application, which included all three of the ele- 
ments, the cost was very nearly twice the amount of the increase 
and the net loss about $13 per acre. This makes a difference in 
the cash results of the two cases equal to a loss of ovee $23 per 
ACRE, by using the three elements together instead of the potash 
alone. Yet the theory in question insists on using all the ele- 
ments OF THE FORMULA IN ALL GASES. 

Again, we have this same instructive lesson confirmed (to- 
gether with some other points of interest) in the following ex- 
periment with potatoes, reported by Cornell University to the 
Elmira Husbandman. The variety of potato planted was the 
Early Rose. The seed consisted of medium-sized whole potatoes 
cut into halves, a single piece being dropped every eighteen 
inches and covered about five inches deep : 



Yield 
of small 

43 


Total 
yield. 

163 


59 
16 
21 


207 
212 

184 


19 
32 


171 

140 


16 


158 


13 


145 


30 


135 


37 


139 



51 

Yield 
Fertilizer applied. of large. 

Plot No, 1. Farm yard manure (on bottom). . 120 lbs. 

2. Farm yard manure (on top) 148 * ' 

3. Ground bone 196 ' ' 

4. Superphosphate (Lister Bios 163 " 

5. Superphosphate (Syracuse) 152 " 

6. Pacific guano 118 ' ' 

7. Peruvian guano ■. 142 ' ' 

8. Hen manure 132 " 

9. Stockbridge fertilizer 105 " 

10. Nothing 102 " 

In this experiment the potato formula, containing the same 
three elements as above, was tested in connection with several 
other fertilizers. It will be seen that, in this case, as before, the 
Stockbridge formula, when used entire (in No. 9) shows a much 
less yield than is given by a part of its elements applied separ- 
ately in No. 3. And what is quite remarkable, on comparing the 
ten plots together, we find that the total formula gives the lowest 
yield of ali, while a mere fraction of it in No. 3 gives the largest 
of all. It will also be seen that these three infallible elements, 
which, I believe, claim to be called a ** complete manure," are 
-here surpassed, in the total yield, by every fe^-tilizer in the 
experiment. In the previous experiment it was the potash ele- 
ment that asserted itself; in this instance it is the phosphatic 
element. 

Again, in a wheat experiment by J. I. Carter, of "West Grove, 
Fa., the point above illustrated is still further emphasised. The 
Wheat Formula is tested in comparison with bone superphos- 
phate (which contains some nitrogen), rock superphosphate 
(without nitrogen), and a fourth plot without manure. The fol- 
lowing is the result: 

1. Wheat Formula.. Grain 26 bush. Straw 2,080 lbs. 

2. Bone Superph.... Grain 33 ♦« Straw 2,326 " 

3. Kock Superph... Grain 35 " ^ Straw 2,650" 

4- No Fertilizer.... Grain 24 " Straw 2,280" 



5^ 
In comparing these products we find that the rock superphos- 
phate (in No. 3), containing but one element of the formula;, 
gives the largest product, both of grain and straw; showing an 
increase over the unmanur^d plot (No. 4) equal to 11 bushels of 
grain, and 370 pounds of straw per acre; while the entire- 
formula (in No. 1) gives an increase of only 2 bushels of grain^ 
and. on the straw a positive loss of 200 pounds. 

Thus it appears that the total loss incurred by applying^ 
the three elements of the theory, when only one is needed, is a 
serious matter, and is not limited by any means to the mere dif- 
ference of yield, but includes also the loss on the fertilizer, as well 
as on the crop, and amounts altogether to 9 bushels of wheat 
and 570 pounds of straw per acre, plus the nitrogen and potash 
applied v/ithout effect; and as these two fertilizers would cost {m 
the forms specified by the theory) about $10, it makes the monej 
value of the entire loss nearly $20 per acre. 

Many other cases might be cited pointing in the same direc- 
tion as those here given, but further illustration is scarcely re- 
quired. 

Now, for results so startling as these, it is not sufficient merely 
to say in their defense that such cases are of rare occurrence, or 
that they are more than compensated by examples of suc- 
cess. Without denying the possible cases of comparative suc- 
cess, or disparaging the value of any results that are fairly 
proved, I yet submit that such decisive and fatal results as those 
above quoted could not occur in a sound system, and ought 
never to be possible in a theory emanating from scientific 
sources, and supposed to be indorsed by the imposing authority 
of an agricultural college. 

The explanation usually given for ignoring the condition of 
the soil in carrying out the details of this theory seems to be sub- 
stantially as follows: The chemist knows accurately what 
elements are contained in crops; therefore it is safe to adapt our 
methods to the requirements of the crop. But the chemist does 



53 
oot sufflciently uuderstand the contents of the soil, nor the con- 
dition of the phmt-food contained in it; therefore it is not safe, 
nor even possible to prescribe the chemical elements required hy 
the soil. Now, it is easy to see that 

THIS BEFENCE IS MOKE PLAUSIBLE THAN SOUND. 

But the answer is plain and simple. The farmer oniist adapt 
liis fertilizers to the soil, or else cease to apj)ly tkem; for there is 
310 other way to make chemical farming pay. If he does not 
fully understand the soil (which is true enough) he must be 
guided by the light he has and get more as soon as possible. If 
the chemist can not enlighten him, he must look to his own ex- 
perience, judgment and skill. For just so far as he is in 
the dark on this point, to that extent his fertilizing is a game of 
•chance. It is very certain that the more ignorant we are of the 
contents of the soil, the more risk we run in applying chemical 
-elements that are certainly expensive, and some of them, from 
our lack of knowledge, either entirely useless, or positively hurt- 
ful. 

If, then, it is true, as claimed by the chemist, that we can not 
yet understand the condition of the soil in regard to the plant- 
food contained in it, and therefore can not make sure of the con- 
i3tituents required, except by some plan that includes both those 
that are needed, and those that are not, and if consequently 
there is no alternative for farmers, but to accept this theory as it 
stands, with all the risk of purchasing and applying what is al- 
ready in the soil, then I have only to say that the time for the 
-chemist (on this question) has not yet arrived, and until he has 
something better to^offer, he may safely stand aside, and make 
j.'Oom for the practical farmer. 

YET EVEN AMONG FAEMEKS 

there is, of course, a wide difference. There are possibly a few 
who are mere laggards and drones that neither gather wisdom 
from the past nor have plans for the future. They are simply 



54 

exceptions to their class, and care but little for methods. But ife 
is certain that a majority of American farmers are men of a dif-- 
ferent type. They are men of intelligence, who derive from the^ 
experience and observation of every^year some additional knowl- 
edge of their soil, its condition and its wants. There are also 
others still more progressive, who carefully examine and record 
their experience, and compare results] with their neighbors and 
with their clubs. They are continually gathering new facts from, 
their soil, and new ideas from the journals they read. 

Such men, while steadily progressing and improving, are not 
insensible that they have still much to learn, and are glad to in-^ 
crease their own limited tnowledgeffrom all the accessible re- 
sources of science, and from all its reliable conclusions. With- 
out claiming to be wiser than others' they often get large audi 
profitable crops without the aid of formulas, and occasionally a. 
maximum yield and a minimum cost, as the result of their owb- 
investigations and successful experiments. Possibly some oi 
them may even have experiment on the hrain, and may solve thi& 
problem sooner than we expect. 

Now, farmers of this class do not pretend to be superior to the 
teachings of chemistry, but, on the contrary, are anxiously wait- 
ing for its higher illumination, and hail with pleasure every new 
acquisition from scientific men. 

Yet if the only method, or the best method of chemical farm- 
ing to be obtained from this source is found to omit nine or ten. 
elements of plant-food on the fallacious theory that the soil will 
always furnish them in the right condition, in the full amount^- 
and at the right time, and if it also involves the necessity of sup- 
plying too much or too many of the elements of nutrition, even, 
to the extent of possible injury, then all that remains for the til- 
lers of the soil is to fall back on their own resources, for they are- 
bent on finding, and certainly will find, either with the chemist^ 
or without him, some safer and surer method of supplying a de- 
ficient soil and feeding a hungry crop, than any yet revealed. 



55 
FEEDING HABITS OF DIFFERENT CROPS. 

The ability of plants to appropriate the nutritive materials in 
the soil has a direct bearing on their vigorous growth. This is a 
point on which they often widely differ, and is consequently a 
matter of much interest to the farmer. The more easily and 
thoroughly they assimilate the plant-food in the soil, or in the 
air, the more rapidly they grow and thrive. But it is an unfor- 
tunate peculiarity of this system that it fails to recognize any dis- 
tinction on this point. Ifc is now quite generally understood 
that leguminous plants, and a few others, have an exceptional 
affinity for nitrogen, which, of course, gives to these formulas a 
a special interest for all such cases. This peculiarity of nitrogen 
is more or less developed in a considerable variety of crops, and 
is therefore a fact of immense importance. And yet, in the pub- 
lished formulas of this theory the distinction is not recognized, 
although nitrogen is the leading factor, and far the most costly. 

It is the opinion of Mr. Lawes, as the result of many trials 
through many years, that it is not expedient to apply artificial 
manures to leguminous plants; and in regard to nitrogen, on 
which he has bestowed especial attention, his opinion in this 
case is undoubtedly sound, but in regard to other artificial 
manures it would be very safe to make some reservation in favor 
of leguminous plants in certain cases, as, for example, in the 
case of soda applied to beans, (Seepage 43.) But this point 
may be more properly discussed hereafter. 

In some remarks made by Professor Stockbridge two years 
since at the State Board of Connecticut, he clearly admits that 
there is a risk and a loss of nitrogen in some of the formulas, and 
also a loss of potash in some of them, and yet it will be seen in 
the following passage from his address that he does not hesitate 
to confirm the formulas as originally given : 

"I agree that some plants can gather nitrogen from natural sources, 
and we need not apply it. All probably gather some, and some 
classes of plants more than others. " 



56 

Again he sajs: 

"There is no .mistake about the fact that clover, beans, and the 
legumes generally, are great gatherers of nitrogen. It is probable that 
wheat gathers some . And yet, in our present condition, from our pres- 
ent standpoint, I do not dare to risk it. I do not dare to send out a 
r and say it will do so-and-so, unless I put all the things in. I 
agree with Prof. Atwater that there is a little loss here. I have put 
nitrogen for some crops that I know I need not have paid for. There 
is a little loss of potash, for I have put in potash for some crops that I 
need not have paid for. That is exactly so. But here. is the point. I 
find it would be impossible for practical farmers, with their ordidary 
system of farming, to ascertain the fact whether they need ijotash or 
not. Prof. Atwater might find it out, perhaps I might find it out, but 
taking farmers generally, I think there would be a failure. I thir^k I 
know that with nitrogen, jiotash and phosphoric acid, mixed in a cer- 
tain way, farmers will get their crops; I do not know but they would 
get their crops if I left out a little potash; I do not know but they 
would if I left out some other things, but I do not dare to risk it. Give 
me time enough, and perhaps I will run these little threads out, and 
find out how much nitrogen I should leave out of the corn-fertilizer, or 
oiit of the wheat-fertilizer, or out of the clover-fertilizer, but you must 
give me time. Until I learn that, I say, "I know nitrogen, potash and 
phosphoric acid will do such-and-such things." I do not know but I 
might take out a little. Until I do know, I do not dare to change my 
formula as a rule of general application." 

Is it not amazing that after these admissions the Professor still 
keeps these formulas unchanged! 

How can he help seeing that the losses, the doubts and the 
perilous uncertainty here conceded by him are virtually but lit- 
tle less than a surrender of the theory for a large class of crops. 

When he says: **I think I know that with nitrogen, potash 
and phosphoric acid, mixed in a certain way, farmers will get 
their crops; I do not know but they would get them if I left out 
a little potash, ^ * ^- or some other thing, but I dare not 
risk it." Is it notxDertinent to remind him that according to his 
previous statement he has already taken a serious risk by put- 



57 
ting in nitrogen and potash at a loss? Does he not realize that 
the formulas for leguminious crops (to say nothing of the ©thers) 
are already so loaded down with needless cost that nothing less 
than total reconstruction can make them safe? 

Exhaustion of Soil* 

The claim, has been made by the advocates of the Stockbridge 
Formulas that they do not exhaust the soil; and, "that all ex- 
periments on this point have shown this conclusion to be practi- 
cally correct." It is also claimed that "the experiments of 
Lawes and Gilbert during thirty years on the same land, conclu- 
sively show that their soil has yearly increased its store of fertil- 
ity with the constant use of chemical manures." 

Now, the statement as to what "all experiments have shown," 
it will be time enough to deal with, when such experiments are 
brought forward. For the present, it is sufficient to say, that no 
-experiment has yet been applied to any staple crop under the 
Stockbridge Formulas that has been correctly made, duly at- 
tested and accurately reported, including all the facts and 
figures that belong to it. 

It is therefore, of course, equally true that no series of exper- 
ments lias yet appeared, under those formulas, that are fairly 
competent to show that his theory does not tend to impoverish 
the soil. This assertion is made distinctly, and without qualifi- 
cation, and if any advocate of the system thinks difierently, and 
wiir venture to bring forward such experiments, practical farm- 
ers will soon have an opportunity of judging whether I am right 
or wrong. 

In regard to the experiments of Lawes and Gilbert, as above 
referred to, the answer is: First, That between those comprehen- 
sive and elaborate experiments, and the limited formulas 
of the American theory, there are but few points of resemblance, 
and those few are adverse to the formulas, as I have already 
shown. 

These experiments of the illustrious English farmer, though of 
great interest, and highly instructive, are far from being perfect, 



58 ' 

but the further examination of them on their general merits; 
must be deferred for a future occasion and a more direct discus- 
sion. 

Second, There is no occasion to deny or to question the 
fact above stated in regard to the soil of Eothamsted, and its in- 
creasing fertility under chemical manures. But it proves noth- 
ing to the purpose in the present case. No sensible man Tvill 
deny the possibility of improving and maintaining the soil with 
chemical elements, by duly increasing the variety and quantity of 
them until the object is gained. It is merely a question of cost. 
The same results achieved in England can be produced here, at 
short notice, by any man who has the necessary capital and 
pluck. But 

THE FACT SEEMS TO BE ENTIEELY OVEELOOKED 

that Mr. Lawes applied in his wheat experiments, not only 
the three elements embraced in the American theory, but vari- 
ous others, including soda, and magnesia, and all of them 
in very much larger quantity. Instead of limiting himself to 
three elements with a total weight of ingredients amounting to 
400 pounds, he used about twice the number of elements, and 
more than quadrupled the weight prescribed by the wheat form- 
ula of the Professor. 

The total amount of chemicals used at Eothamsted ranged 
from about 1,400 pounds per acre to over 2,400 pounds, and it 
was only with the latter quantity that the largest yields were 
reached. 

Is it, then, aiiy wonder that Mr. Lawes obtained large prod, 
nets without impoverishing his land? Would it not rather be 
amazing if he had failed to do so? But these imposing results 
obtained at a fabulous cost will hardly mislead American farm- 
ers, for they well knov/ that any man attempting the same thing 
here would soon find himself brought to grief, and buried 
financially beyond the hope of resurrection. Yet we are told 
that this sustained fertility ensured only by a profusion of 
chemicals that were measured by thousands of pounds per acre 



59 
proves that a formula limited to three elements, and to less than 
one -fourth the total amount, \vill in like manner insure 
munificent yields, and increasing fertility of soil. 
It is certainly not difficult to perceive in this case 

THE FALLACY OF THE EEASONING. 

It assumes that when three elements are applied to the soil,. 
this restores all the plant-food taken out by the crop. Let us se& 
if this is really true. When the Professor in his trial crop, al- 
ready examined, claimed that 50 bushels of the yield were due to- 
the fertilizers applied, he still had left 44 bushels due to the soil.. 
That shows that he only returned a little over half the amount 
of the three elemeuts, taken out by the crop. But this is not all. 
There were nine other elements also abstracted by the crop in 
larger or smaller amounts. Yet it won't do to say that thes& 
elements can all of them safely be left to the care of nature, for 
I have already shown by unmistakable facts that this is not so^ 
and that some of the best authority agree in this conclusion. 

How, then, does the case stand? Simply thus: The soil wa& 
impoverished, in regard to nine of its elements, to the extent of 
ninety-four bushels of grain, and the corresponding stover. It 
was also further impoverished, in regard to the other three ele- 
ments, to the extent of 44 bushels with the stover. Still we are- 
expected to believe that the soil in that case was not impaired, 
because in another case, it was maintained by an application of 
nearly a ton of plant-food covering five or six varieties of ele- 
ments. 

Nitrogen Not Recovered. 

It is a question well worth examining, though seldom duly- 
considered, what proportion of the fertilizers applied to the land- 
actually reaches and enters into the plants for which it is intend- 
ed. It is very evident that in nearly all cases some portion 
of each element applied fails to find its way into tlie crop. Thia 
arises from a variety of causes that need not here be discussed. 
The extent of this loss depends in part on the mode of treat- 
ment, but largely also on the condition of the niaterial, the con- 
dition of the soil, the feeding habits of plants, &c. 



6o 

Of course the amount of plant-food that thus fails to reach the 
-crop is part of the expense of manuring, and therefore a factor 
in the cost of production. With some fertilizers the amount of 
toss from this case is small, and may be disregarded. But with 
others, and especially with nitrogen, the amount is quite a 
serious matter, and no careful farmer can afford to disregard it. 

Mr, Lawes, in a letter to the Scientific Farmer, has stated that 
■with the cereals, in his experience, nearly one-half the nitrogen 
is not recovered in the increase of crop. It also appears from a 
iable quoted by Mr. Harris, and extending through many years, 
that the average proportion of nitrogen not recovered is over 60 
per cent. If it shall be found on further investigation that even 
^0 or 40 per cent, of this costly element on a general average is 
lost to the crop, it is a matter too serious to be disregarded, and 
seems to require some change in the formulas. In fact it is evi- 
dent that the whole question of nitrogen as it stands in this sys- 
tem might be reconsidered with advantage. 

THE COST OF PEODUCTION 

ior crops raised under this s^^stem of chemical farming is after 
^11 the only true measure of the value of the system. To this 
question I have already briefly referred, but in view of its con- 
ceded importance, it demands further examination. I have re- 
ferred also to the fact that we have as yet no practical trials of 
this theory made with such accuracy, clearness and fulness of 
-detail as to warrant us in accepting them a^ a demonstration. 

This is the more to be regretted, because it is well known that 
one such trial, if wisely planned, and faultless in its execution* 
would shad more light on the system, and be worth more as an 
argument, than a hundred trials defectively made, with essential 
conditions left out, and having consequently no logical value. 

Every crop raised under a new theory is really an experi- 
ment, however imperfectly performed, and however regarded by 
the man who performs it. He is consequently working in the 
interest of a problem, and helping forward its final solution. 
It is a question' of profit or loss, not for one crop or season 



6i 

only, but for the rest of his Hfe; and not for one man only, but 
for every tiller of the soil, ancl every consumer of bread. Each 
ray of light struck from the soil in these experiments creates a 
new value in husbandry, and is often a new factor in the cost of 
produetion. It belongs not to an individual, but to the whole 
community of farmers. 

COST OF THE CHEMICAIj ELEMENTS OF CROPS. 

In order to determine the cost of producing crops, bythis^ 
system, let us first examine the cost of the fertilizers. In the 
case of corn, according to the latest circular of Bowker & Co. 
(1878) the fertilizer is charged at the rate of ^20 for 40 bushels 
of the grain, which is equal to 50 cents per bushel. For wheat 
the charge is at the rate of $15 for 25 bushels of the grain, 
which is equal to 60 cents per bushel. This makes the average 
cost of the materials in both cases equal to 2>^ cents per 
pound. 

In addition to this the farmer pays the freight charge, and the- 
cost of hauling to the field, and applying to the crop, which 
would vary somewhat according to difference of locality, &c. , 
and would range from 5 to 10 cents per bushel. "With these ad- 
ditions the total cost of fertilizers for an increase of corn equa? 
to 50 bushels per acre would be from 55 to 60 cents per bushel;: 
and for an increase of wheat equal to 25 bushels per acre would 
be from 65 to 70 cents per bushel. 

Yet these figures do not measure the entire cost of the extra 
bushels obtained. There are other factors also that enter into- 
the calculation, and increase the cost. 

But the final question to consider here, and in which the oth- 
ers are merged is this: How does the increase of yield produced 
by fertilizers effect the cost per bushel for the entire crop? 
Viewed in this connection the cost of chemical elements in its 
connection with staple crops, becomes widely interesting, and 
assumes an aspect of even national importance. 

If we take the price of the materials in the corn-formula at the 
rate of 50 cents per bushel of grain (as appears in the circular of 



62 

Bowker & Co.*), and assume the expense for treight, hauling and 
applying the same, to average 7 cents per bushel, we then have 
-tor the total cost of the fertilizer when placed in contact with 
1;he crop, 57 cents for each bushel it is assumed to produce. It 
is immaterial whether the farmer orders the formula for 50 
bushels or some other amount; the cost being at the same rate. 

At this point arises another question. If the formula applied 
is adapted to a gain of 50 bushels, and the yield proves to be 65 
-bushels, does the amount paid for the formula cover the cost of 
plant-food for the entire crop? Certainly not. The other 15 
bushels are due to the capacity of the soil. But the cost to the 
farmer is none the less certain, whether paid for in money, or in 
lost fertility. Whether the yield is 20 bushels, or 120, it makes 
sao difference. If he is a correct business man, he charges to the 
■crop the chemical elements for every bushel of yield. 

Well, says the inquirer, conceding the charge to be correctly 
made for the whole crop, is the entire cost of plant-food then 
<30vered? There are several reasons why it is not. It is found, 
as a rule, with hardly a single exception, that a part of the 
nitrogen applied to crojDS is not returned in increase ; and this is 
also true in some cases in regard to phosphoric acid. 

What, then, is the proper amount of loss to charge for the 
partial failure of these elements to reach the crop? That is 
more than we can at present determine. But it is certain that 
such loss is one of the factors in the cost of production. 

So far, then, says the interrogator, the case may be admitted, 
as to the fact of a loss: But if we suppose that a certain per- 
centage on the cost of the fertilizer will represent this defiency, 
is there any other item of cost for plant elements to be charged 
io the crop? There is undoubtedly another loss under this theory 
that is not yet provided for. There are nine elements omitted 

*" We guarantee to fiirnisli the amount of plant-food required according to Pro- 
fessor Stockbridge's formulas to produce the minimum quantity of crop stated with 
each manure, and in the right form for each crop.'' — Circular of 1878., 
n the corn formula for $20, the minimum quantity stated is 40 bushels. 



63 
from the formulas, that are extracted from the soil by every 
<5rop, and for which no provision is made. Have we any means 
of knowing what this loss amounts to? We shall doubtless un- 
derstand this subject much better as chemistry advances. At 
present we can not measure the extent of this exhaustion, though 
we know that in some cases the soil responds promptly and gen- 
erously to an application of such elements as soda, magnesia, 
lime, &c., which proves two things: First, that the crop needs 
them; and, second, that the soil does not contain them in suf- 
ficient amount. 

Let us now briefly refer to the other factors that belong to the 
<}ost of crops. Though the experience of farmers differs widely 
in regard to these, it will not be difficult to estimate them nearly 
enough for the present purpose. 

The cost of labor and seed for an acre of corn has been esti- 
mated by J. I. Carter, of Pennsylvania, at about $12, and by 
Professor Sales, of Michigan, at very nearly the same figure, 
while some others in that section made the cost more, and fur- 
ther East it reaches a still higher figure among the best farmers. 
In a successful crop of nine acres Joseph Harris found the cost 
of these items to be $26. Dr. Sturtevant, on several estimates 
made at different times, and under different conditions, has 
found the cost to vary from less than $20 to nearly $30. On com- 
paring a considerable number of cases, the average in New Eng- 
land and New York appears to be, among the best farmers, about 
$22 per acre. 

For interest, taxes, &c., the usual estimate is $10 per acre, 
"but it often exceeds that sum. 

The amount of stalks for each bushel of grain is held to aver- 
age, when well cured, from 90 to 100 pounds, and the value per 
ton is not less than $8. 

There should also be added to these figures a small percentage 
on the cost of the fertilizers to represent the proportion that 
does not re- appear in the crop, and also a moderate estimate to 



64 

represent the exhaustion of soil from the elements not included 
in the formula. Let us put these fipfures for the present at the 
merely nominal rate of 5 per cent, each, on the cost of the fertil- 
izers, making a total, for the two, of 10 percent. 

If we now tabulate these figures for a crop of 65 bushels per 
acre, under a formula for 50 bushels, and concede that the nor- 
mal yield is only 15 bushels (which is not only uncertain, but 
improbable) we shall have the following result: 

Cost of labor and seed $22.00 per acre 

" chemicals for 50 bushels, at 57 cents 28 50 " 

" chemicals for 15 bushels, at 57 cents 8.55 " 

Loss on nitrogen not returned 5 per cent 1.85 " 

" from exhaustion [not otherwise covered], 5 per ct. 1.85 " 

Rent and taxes 10.00 

72.75 
Cr. stover, 3^ tons at $8 26.00 

$46.75 
This makes the cost 72 cents per bushel. 

If now, under this same formula, we assume the yield to be 
75 bushels per acre, instead of 65 the cost would then be 66 
cents per bushel. 

Or if, without any change in the yield, we reduce the estimate 
by omitting the percentage of loss, and call the labor account 
$20, this would make the cost per bushel for the crop 63}^ cents. 

Now it is perfectly evident that no such cost as this for Indian 
corn can ever make it a paying crop. Every sensible man knows 
that it is produced every season and in every section of the coun- 
try by countless practical farmers at less than half the above cost, 
nor is there any sufficient reasons why this great staple should 
not be grown at 25 cents per bushel, or less as a general rule, 
even in New England. There is a method by which this result 
may be reached and often surpassed by a majority of farmers j 
but the ke2/ to the method is only to be found in a right system of 
experimental farming. 



^ 



